---
tags: GIS
---

# The Stack：Design and Geopolitics in the Age of Planetary-Scale Computing

{%youtube IXan6TvMqgk %}

Hi, welcome everybody to the discussion this evening with Benjamin Bratton, the stack design in geopolitics in the age of planetary scale computing. We're also live webcasting tonight. My name is Amjohal, I'm the director of community engagement here. I just want to begin by acknowledging that we're on the unceded territories of the Coast Salish people, the Musqueam, the Squamish, and the Tsleil-Waututh. Also want to just take the time to acknowledge the other departments that have supported this talk, being able to happen.

大家好，歡迎大家今晚與 Benjamin Bratton 一起討論行星尺度計算時代地緣政治的堆棧設計。我們今晚也進行網絡直播。我叫 Amjohal，是這裡的社區參與主管。首先，我只想承認我們位於 Coast Salish 人、Musqueam、Squamish 和 Tsleil-Waututh 未割讓的領土上。也想花點時間感謝支持這次談話的其他部門，能夠發生。

People that we collaborate with regularly from the Institute for Humanities, which we work with 12 or 15 times a year. I want to particularly thank Sabir Gandesha and the team there. The SFU English department, Jeff Drixen and others there. Also want to mention this coming Wednesday, Rawi Hodge, the writer in residence, will be presenting a talk in the World Arts Center in the building on a Wednesday evening at seven. As well, SFU galleries, Melanie O'Brien and Amy Kazimierczak are here.

我們定期與人文研究所合作的人，我們每年與之合作 12 或 15 次。我要特別感謝 Sabir Gandesha 和那裡的團隊。 SFU 英語系、Jeff Drixen 和其他人在那裡。還要提一下即將到來的周三，常駐作家拉維·霍奇 (Rawi Hodge) 將於週三晚上七點在大樓內的世界藝術中心發表演講。此外，SFU 畫廊 Melanie O&#39；Brien 和 Amy Kazimierczak 也在這裡。

And of course, the School for Contemporary Arts, which houses the academic program here, Sabina Bittcher, Judy Redoul, Elspeth Pratt as well. And also SFU Vancouver, Laurie Anderson and Scott McLean. Also want to thank Style Garage across the street here, who helped donate some furniture for this evening as well. Sean Callahan and of course, Andrea Creamer and Fiorella Penelis, who work with me. Did a lot of work behind the scenes leading up to the talk.

當然，還有開設學術課程的當代藝術學院，還有 Sabina Bittcher、Judy Redoul 和 Elspeth Pratt。還有 SFU Vancouver、Laurie Anderson 和 Scott McLean。還要感謝街對面的 Style Garage，他們也為今晚捐贈了一些家具。 Sean Callahan，當然還有和我一起工作的 Andrea Creamer 和 Fiorella Penelis。在演講之前做了很多幕後工作。

It's a great honor to welcome Benjamin Brattain here. One of the joys of working here is that I try to only program things that I'd be interested in attending myself. And so I came across Benjamin's work related to geopolitics in working on my own dissertation. And his work, of course, in E-Flux and other places that's circulating in the visual arts, but found it very interesting. He's currently the associate professor at University of California, San Diego.

非常榮幸地歡迎 Benjamin Brattain 來到這裡。在這里工作的樂趣之一是我嘗試只編寫我自己感興趣的東西。因此，我在撰寫自己的論文時遇到了本傑明與地緣政治相關的工作。而他的作品，當然，在 E-Flux 和其他在視覺藝術中流傳的地方，卻發現它非常有趣。他目前是加州大學聖地亞哥分校的副教授。

He's also the director of the Center for Design and Geopolitics. He completed his doctoral studies in the sociology of technology at the University of California Santa Barbara. His research deals with computational media and infrastructure design research management in methodologies, classical and contemporary sociological theory, architectural and urban design problems, as well as the politics of synthetic ecologies and biologies. His current projects focus on the political geography of cloud computing, robotics, and artificial intelligence. His book, The Stack on Software and Sovereignty, will be published with MIT Press in fall of 2015.

他還是設計與地緣政治中心的主任。他在加州大學聖巴巴拉分校完成了技術社會學博士研究。他的研究涉及方法論中的計算媒體和基礎設施設計研究管理、古典和當代社會學理論、建築和城市設計問題，以及合成生態學和生物學的政治學。他目前的項目側重於雲計算、機器人和人工智能的政治地理。他的著作《The Stack on Software and Sovereignty》將於 2015 年秋季由麻省理工學院出版社出版。

I ask you to join me in welcoming Benjamin Brattain. Well, thank you all for coming out tonight. And thank you to Om for the invitation to come and speak with you and share some of this work. As you got a sense from the introduction, my work is very interdisciplinary. And sometimes I'll be invited to speak to philosophy and theory audience.

我請你和我一起歡迎 Benjamin Brattain。好吧，謝謝大家今晚的到來。感謝 Om 邀請我來與您交談並分享其中的一些工作。正如您從介紹中了解到的那樣，我的工作是跨學科的。有時我會受邀向哲學和理論聽眾演講。

My work, I guess, triangulates between philosophy and theory, design and architecture, and digital media and software studies. And so if I'm invited to speak to the design and architecture people, I'm the philosophy and digital media guy. If it's a digital media conference, I'm the philosophy and architecture. So I always have one foot in and two feet out. This book, The Stack on Software and Sovereignty, which is coming out next year from MIT Press, is my attempt to kind of put this all together into a big picture.

我想，我的工作在哲學和理論、設計和建築以及數字媒體和軟件研究之間進行了三角測量。因此，如果我被邀請與設計和建築人員交談，我就是哲學和數字媒體專家。如果是數字媒體會議，我就是哲學和架構。所以我總是一隻腳在裡面，兩隻腳在外面。這本書，The Stack on Software and Sovereignty，將於明年由麻省理工學院出版社出版，是我試圖將所有這些放在一起形成一幅大圖景的嘗試。

It's been a while since theory has been in the big picture business, unfortunately. The questions of totalities and what we used to call metanarratives and so forth have been held in some disrepute. And so I make no guarantees as to the repute of what we do. But what I would like to share with you tonight, then, is in a way a kind of a version of the book as a whole. And there's a way in which the sort of structure of the argument, the structure that it tries to describe in the world, tries to activate in it at once.

不幸的是，理論進入大局已經有一段時間了。總體性問題以及我們過去稱之為元敘事等的問題一直受到一些聲名狼藉。因此，我不保證我們所做工作的聲譽。但是，今晚我想與大家分享的，在某種程度上是整本書的一個版本。並且有一種方法可以使論證的結構，它試圖在世界上描述的結構，試圖立即在其中激活。

And I think to some extent it holds together best when we see the whole picture at once. So that's kind of what I want to draw for you tonight, my picture on the cave wall here. Okay, let's begin here. In an address to the Council on Foreign Relations on the need for a new geopolitical architecture, the then outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a rather striking recommendation. She said, we need a new architecture for this new world, more Frank Gehry than formal Greek.

我認為在某種程度上，當我們同時看到整個畫面時，它最能結合在一起。這就是我今晚想為你畫的東西，我在這洞壁上的畫像。好的，讓我們從這裡開始。在就新地緣政治架構的必要性向外交關係委員會發表講話時，當時即將卸任的國務卿希拉里克林頓提出了一個相當引人注目的建議。她說，我們需要一個新的建築來適應這個新世界，更像弗蘭克·蓋里而不是正式的希臘建築。

She described the system dominated by the United Nations, NATO, and several other large organizations as the equivalent to the classical Parthenon in Athens. By contrast, there's Gehry's modern architecture. Some of his work might appear haphazard, but in fact it's highly intentional and sophisticated, Clinton said. Where once a few strong columns could hold up the weight of the world, today we need a dynamic mix of materials and structures. Now looking to contemporary design for models of geopolitical architecture, both literal structures and figural systems, may be a good idea regardless of what one may think of Gehry's rather floral morphologies as necessarily being the best option.

她將聯合國、北約和其他幾個大型組織主導的體系描述為相當於雅典的古典帕特農神廟。相比之下，有蓋里的現代建築。克林頓說，他的一些工作可能看起來很隨意，但實際上是非常有目的和復雜的。曾經幾根堅固的柱子可以支撐整個世界的重量，而今天我們需要材料和結構的動態組合。現在尋找地緣政治建築模型的當代設計，無論是文字結構還是圖形系統，都可能是一個好主意，無論人們如何看待蓋里的花卉形態必然是最佳選擇。

But what drives, the question remains, what drives this demand for new armatures and diagrams of global power and sovereignty? Clinton went on to point out that his global information systems is perhaps the single most important, most powerful engine of this new world that would demand new organizing architectures. The continuing emergence of planetary scale computation as our infrastructure and of information as a historical category of economic and geographic substance together suggests that something fundamental has shifted off center. That global transformations of hard and soft systems brought by computation has disturbed neat arrangements in what Clinton struggles to articulate and what we struggle to describe and design for. While trade and migration perforates borders, state sovereignty and supervision over information flows is also dramatically re-inscribed and reinforced.

但問題仍然存在，是什麼推動了對全球權力和主權的新架構和圖表的需求？克林頓接著指出，他的全球信息系統可能是這個需要新的組織架構的新世界最重要、最強大的引擎。作為我們的基礎設施的行星規模計算的不斷出現，以及作為經濟和地理實體的歷史類別的信息的不斷出現，共同表明一些根本性的東西已經偏離了中心。計算帶來的硬系統和軟系統的全球轉變擾亂了克林頓努力表達的東西以及我們努力描述和設計的東西的整潔安排。在貿易和移民跨越邊界的同時，國家主權和對信息流動的監督也得到了極大的重新規定和加強。

The possible architectures at work now and in the future seem twisted and torqued in the extreme. But first, what happened to the old architecture? Technology and design aside, how might we see that in terms of a question for political science let's say? My interest in the geopolitics of planetary scale computation focuses less, this is sort of a disclaimer, focuses less on issues of personal privacy and surveillance than on how it distorts and deforms traditional Westphalian modes of political geography, which I'll describe in a moment, jurisdiction and sovereignty. And also how it in turn produces new territories in its own image.

現在和未來可能的架構似乎在極端扭曲和扭曲。但首先，舊架構發生了什麼？撇開技術和設計不談，我們如何看待政治學問題？我對行星尺度計算的地緣政治學的興趣較少，這是一種免責聲明，較少關注個人隱私和監視問題，而是關注它如何扭曲和變形傳統的威斯特伐利亞政治地理學模式，我稍後將對此進行描述、管轄權和主權。以及它如何反過來以自己的形象產生新的領土。

My interest in draws sort of both from and in many ways against the work of Carl Schmitt and his Nomos of the Earth and his albeit savagely flawed history of the geometries of geopolitical architecture. Now this word Nomos, N-O-M-O-S, refers to the dominant and essential logic for the political subdivisions of the earth, of land, sea, air, and also now of the domain that the US military simply calls cyber. And for the geopolitical order that stabilizes accordingly. Now this term loop geography and Westphalian mode, what do I mean by that exactly? The Peace of Westphalia, the Treaty of Westphalia 1648, is largely established the basic terms of the geography of the nation state.

我對 Carl Schmitt 和他的 Nomos of the Earth 的作品以及他關於地緣政治建築幾何學的歷史儘管存在嚴重缺陷，但在很多方面都與我的興趣相提並論。現在這個詞 Nomos，NOMOS，指的是地球、陸地、海洋、空中以及現在美國軍方簡稱為網絡的領域的政治分區的主導和基本邏輯。以及相應穩定的地緣政治秩序。現在這個術語循環地理和威斯特伐利亞模式，我到底是什麼意思？ The Peace of Westphalia，即1648年的威斯特伐利亞條約，很大程度上是確立了民族國家地理的基本條款。

The looped subdivision, maybe jagged loops but nevertheless loops, subdivision of land inside of which everyone has a currency, a king, a flag, World Cup team, whatever. But the subdivision is of land, not of air, not of sea, not of information in this as well. And by what I mean by loop topology, it's sort of the jagged shape, however jagged they might be, this order is dependent on this particular kind of topological diagram. One that never really held, never really sort of made it all the way is that it was meant, and continues to be menaced by its exceptions. Various enclave and exclaves that perforate and overlap this order.

環形的細分，也許是鋸齒狀的環形，但仍然是環形的，土地的細分，其中每個人都有貨幣、國王、旗幟、世界杯球隊等等。但是細分是陸地，不是空中，不是海洋，也不是信息。我所說的循環拓撲的意思是，它有點像鋸齒狀，不管它們有多鋸齒，這個順序取決於這種特定類型的拓撲圖。一個從未真正成立，從未真正實現過的是它的本意，並繼續受到其例外情況的威脅。貫穿和重疊該秩序的各種飛地和飛地。

The diagram of the various versions of Europe, for example, by which one could be either inside or outside at any given moment. Now today, as the nomos that was defined by the horizontal loop geometry of the modern state system creaks and groans, and as seeing like a state takes leave of that initial territorial nest, both with and against the demands of planetary scale computation, we wrestle with the irregular abstractions of information, time and territory, and the chaotic delamination of practical sovereignty from the occupation of place. And for this, a nomos of the cloud, let's say, would for example draw jurisdiction not only by horizontal subdivision of physical sites by enforced states, but also by the vertical stacking of interdependent layers, one on top of another. Two geometries, sometimes in cahoots, sometimes completely diagonal, and even unrecognizable to one another. So what then might be this new armature instead?

例如，歐洲的各種版本的圖表，在任何給定時刻，人們都可以通過它在內部或外部。現在，今天，隨著由現代國家體系的水平循環幾何學定義的 nomos 吱吱作響和呻吟，並且看到一個國家離開了最初的領土巢穴，無論是在行星尺度計算的要求下還是在行星尺度計算的要求下，我們都在努力隨著信息、時間和領土的不規則抽象，以及實際主權與地方佔領的混亂分離。為此，比方說，雲的 nomos 不僅通過強制狀態對物理站點的水平細分，而且通過相互依賴的層的垂直堆疊，一個在另一個之上。兩種幾何圖形，有時相互配合，有時完全對角線，甚至彼此無法辨認。那麼這個新電樞可能是什麼呢？

Planetary scale computation. First we think that we understand that it takes different forms at different scales. Energy grids, mineral sourcing, chthonic cloud infrastructure, urban software, public service privatization, massive universal addressing systems, interfaces drawn by the augmentation of the hand, of the eye, or dissolved into objects, users both overdetermined by self-quantification and exploded by the arrival of legions of non-human users, sensors, cars, and robots. But perhaps instead of seeing all these various genres or species of contemporary computational technologies as so many different genres of machines spinning out on their own, we should, I think, see them instead as forming the body of an accidental megastructure. Perhaps these parts align, layer by layer, into something not unlike a vast, if also incomplete, pervasive, if also irregular, software and hardware stack.

行星尺度計算。首先，我們認為我們了解它在不同的規模上採用不同的形式。能源網絡、礦產資源、地下云基礎設施、城市軟件、公共服務私有化、大規模通用尋址系統、由手、眼的增強繪製的界面，或分解為物體的界面，用戶由自我量化過度決定，並由大量非人類用戶、傳感器、汽車和機器人的到來。但也許我們不應將所有這些不同類型或種類的當代計算技術視為許多不同類型的機器自行發展，我認為，我們應該將它們視為形成偶然巨型結構的主體。也許這些部分逐層對齊，形成一個巨大的、不完整的、無處不在的、不規則的軟件和硬件堆棧。

This model then is of a stack that both does and does not yet exist as such. It is a machine that serves as a schema as much as a schema of machines. And as such, the image of totality that this conception provides would, as theories of totality have before, make the composition and design of new governmentalities and new sovereignties both more legible and more effective. So the stack, in short, is that new no-mo, rendered now as a vertically thickened political geography. In my analysis, there are six layers of this stack, which I'll go through quickly tonight.

這個模型是一個既存在又不存在的堆棧。它是一台機器，既充當機器的模式，又充當模式。因此，這一概念所提供的整體性形象，就像之前的整體性理論一樣，將使新政府和新主權的組成和設計更清晰、更有效。因此，簡而言之，堆棧是新的 no-mo，現在呈現為垂直加厚的政治地理。在我的分析中，這個堆棧有六層，今晚我將快速介紹一下。

Earth, cloud, city, address, interface, and user. And as I say, I'll touch on each of these a bit, but I want to focus specifically on the cloud and the user and articulate some alternative designs for these. Once you start looking for stacks, you find them everywhere. It is a model by which the entire internet as we know it already works. This is a diagram of the TCP IP stack.

地球、雲、城市、地址、界面和用戶。就像我說的，我會略微談及其中的每一個，但我想特別關注云和用戶，並為它們闡明一些替代設計。一旦開始尋找堆棧，就會發現它們無處不在。這是我們所知道的整個互聯網已經運作的模型。這是 TCP IP 堆棧的圖表。

The basic principle here is that you have these vertically layered systems. Each technology within this mechanism has a specific assignment. And as long as it can send and receive information to the level above it and the level below it, you can stick any kind of machine into that layer and the whole network will continue to work. So you can replace, for example, twisted pair copper wire with fiber optics and still be able to make phone calls. So when one user, let's say, at the top of the application layer is sending an email to another user, he or she sends the signal all the way down the bottom, activating the entire mechanism at once, and then all the way back up again to the other user.

這裡的基本原則是你有這些垂直分層的系統。該機制中的每項技術都有特定的任務。只要它能向上下層發送和接收信息，你可以把任何一種機器插到那一層，整個網絡就可以繼續工作。例如，您可以用光纖替換雙絞線銅線，並且仍然可以打電話。因此，比方說，當一個用戶在應用層的頂部向另一個用戶發送電子郵件時，他或她將信號一直向下發送到底部，立即激活整個機制，然後一直向上返回再次給其他用戶。

So the whole infrastructure, the entire apparatus is invoked twice in this sort of U-shaped structure. But as I say, once you look for them, they are kind of everywhere. I think it's important to understand that also when we think of these stacks and understand what they are, they're both a technical model but also an institutional model. That is, they're both a way in which of structuring machines, in a way of structuring technology, but they're also a way of structuring societies, cultures, economics, as any diagram might in fact be. And one key idea, just to hold on to, is that it's the modularity of things at any one layer that actually makes the system work the way it does.

所以整個基礎設施，整個設備在這種 U 形結構中被調用兩次。但正如我所說，一旦你尋找它們，它們就會無處不在。我認為重要的是要理解，當我們想到這些堆棧並理解它們是什麼時，它們既是一種技術模型，也是一種制度模型。也就是說，它們既是構建機器的方式，也是構建技術的方式，但它們也是構建社會、文化、經濟的方式，正如任何圖表實際上可能的那樣。一個關鍵的想法，只要堅持，就是任何一層事物的模塊化實際上使系統按照它的方式工作。

Okay, so then to the layers. Now, with these caveats in mind, it is possible, I think, to see what appears to us as a reasonably complete, already a reasonably complete image of the whole, and even perhaps to leverage this totality as a way to draw what might replace it sooner or later. Perhaps we can see all the layers at once, both as what they are and as what they do. So starting at the bottom of the image and moving up from earth to user, imagine this in a way as one single tracking shot. I'm sorry, I want to skip this for the purposes of time.

好的，然後到圖層。現在，考慮到這些警告，我認為，有可能看到在我們看來是相當完整的，已經是相當完整的整體形象，甚至可能利用這種整體性來繪製可能替代的東西它遲早會。或許我們可以同時看到所有的層次，包括它們的本質和作用。因此，從圖像的底部開始，從地球向上移動到用戶，將其想像成一個單一的跟踪鏡頭。抱歉，為了節省時間，我想跳過這個。

All right, to the earth layer. The black death of oil is formed into brilliant plastic mobile decks. Heterogeneous minerals are pulled from mountain streams in Central Africa and other places turned into our devices. The stack terraforms the host planet by drinking and vomiting its elemental juices and spitting up mobile phones. The shiny surfaces of our handsets demand gore to gloss their faces.

好吧，到地球層。石油的黑死病形成了輝煌的塑料移動甲板。從中非和其他地方的山間溪流中提取的異質礦物變成了我們的設備。堆棧通過飲用和吐出其元素汁液以及吐出手機來改造宿主星球。我們手機的閃亮表面需要戈爾來擦亮它們的表面。

Satellite networks expand the literal circumference of the earth, bearing down with false images of a denuded whole now turned from a map into an interface and in turn into a vast planetary epidermis to be governed as a total living image. All this is powered by an Ouroboros-shaped smart grid, which in distributing electrons in peer-to-peer packet networks may rationalize and lighten the carbon burden of industrial computation or may consume the last remaining terawatts and CO2 gigatons into a black hole of data center-shaped future ruins, in which in doing so spawns new jurisdictions of those affected and those causing climate change, turning the ecology itself into the final emergency against which we try to defend ourselves in a losing battle with the mathematics of biology, turning the ecology itself into a kind of final ambient emergency. Stack geographies both complicate and clarify the design of these platform sovereignties as much for what they make possible as for what they disrupt. Also, Google's motto, to organize the world's information and to make it useful, changes meaning when the world itself is seen as being information, such as to organize all the information is to organize all the world. And in this, it transforms what states or other systems of governance can see, what they can know, what they can affect.

衛星網絡擴大了地球的實際周長，用一個被剝蝕的整體的虛假圖像壓制，現在從地圖變成了一個界面，又變成了一個巨大的行星表皮，作為一個完整的活生生的圖像來管理。所有這一切都由 Ouroboros 形狀的智能電網提供動力，它在對等分組網絡中分配電子可以合理化和減輕工業計算的碳負擔，或者可能將最後剩餘的太瓦和 CO2 十億噸消耗到數據黑洞中中心形狀的未來廢墟，這樣做會產生受影響者和造成氣候變化者的新管轄區，將生態本身變成最後的緊急情況，我們試圖在與生物學數學的失敗戰鬥中保衛自己，轉變生態本身變成了一種最終的環境緊急情況。堆棧地理位置既使這些平台主權的設計變得複雜又清晰，因為它們使它們成為可能，也因為它們破壞了它們。此外，當世界本身被視為信息時，谷歌的座右銘，組織世界的信息並使其有用，改變了意義，例如組織所有信息就是組織整個世界。在這方面，它改變了國家或其他治理系統可以看到什麼，他們可以知道什麼，可以影響什麼。

It turns into a form of organizational cognition. And so, as sensing extends to all specific surfaces, no longer dumb but now rather effective, the net sum of what is opened up or closed off by the spaces of computation largely defines what it is that any governing platform now chooses to sense and not sense in general. The extrapolation of planetary surfaces as epidermis has been inextricably linked with the conceptualization of climatic measurement and prediction. Global climate and weather systems have, of course, a long history, have long been a driving application for large-scale planetary instrumentation and the understanding of the globe itself as a vast machine. The ultimate ambition, I think, of this is to provide an open and comprehensive multi-constituent platform for monitoring and governing planetary biological and ecological systems, with particular emphasis on water distribution and carbon quantification.

它變成了一種組織認知形式。因此，隨著傳感擴展到所有特定表面，不再是愚蠢的，而是現在相當有效，計算空間打開或關閉的淨總和在很大程度上定義了任何管理平台現在選擇感知而不是感知的內容總體感覺。將行星表面外推為表皮與氣候測量和預測的概念化有著千絲萬縷的聯繫。當然，全球氣候和天氣系統有著悠久的歷史，長期以來一直推動著大規模行星儀器的應用，並將地球本身理解為一台巨大的機器。我認為，其最終目標是為監測和管理行星生物和生態系統提供一個開放和綜合的多成分平台，特別強調水分配和碳量化。

That is to say, this apparatus that we have built, this accidental megastructure, one accident of it, in a way, is that it is both the primary means by which we're able to identify, to measure, and to model climate change. It's also one of the primary causes of the climate change that it itself is modeling. And there was a, several years ago, I was on a panel with this very interesting guy who was a systems architect, a chip architect, basic research guy with HP, I won't mention his name. And he was talking about a project that he was on, a panel that he was asked to join by then-Vice President Gore. And the assignment of this panel was to design and to imagine the possibility of a computer that could model the entire climate in real time.

也就是說，我們建造的這個裝置，這個意外的巨型結構，它的一個意外，在某種程度上，是我們能夠識別、測量和模擬氣候變化的主要手段.這也是它本身正在建模的氣候變化的主要原因之一。幾年前，我和一個非常有趣的人一起參加了一個小組討論會，他是惠普的系統架構師、芯片架構師和基礎研究人員，我不想提他的名字。他正在談論他正在進行的一個項目，當時的副總統戈爾要求他加入一個小組。這個小組的任務是設計和想像一台可以實時模擬整個氣候的計算機的可能性。

What would it take to actually build a computer that could do this? And so these guys figured out that basically it would take what amounts to zettabyte computing, which is several orders of magnitude beyond the kind of supercomputing that we have now or are likely to have in the future. But they also figured out that such a machine able to do this would be roughly the size of Paris and would be the single most significant energy consumption event that it itself would be modeling. In a way, this is the integral accident, the snake eating its own tail problem of the earth layer. All right.

實際構建一台可以執行此操作的計算機需要什麼？所以這些人發現，基本上這將需要 zettabyte 計算，這比我們現在或將來可能擁有的超級計算要高出幾個數量級。但他們也發現，這樣一台能夠做到這一點的機器大約相當於巴黎的大小，並且將成為它自己建模的最重要的能源消耗事件。從某種意義上說，這是整體事故，蛇吃自己的地層尾巴問題。好的。

To the cloud. The platforms of the cloud layer of the stack are structured by dense, plural, and noncontiguous geographies. A hybrid of USA super jurisdiction and the charter cities which would carve now partially privatized polities from the whole cloth of desovereign lands. But perhaps there's a bit more there. Consider for example this peculiar episode from a few years ago.

到雲端。堆棧雲層的平台由密集、複數和非連續的地理區域構成。美國超級管轄權和特許城市的混合體，它們將從整個無主權土地上雕刻出現在部分私有化的政體。但也許還有更多。以幾年前的這個奇特事件為例。

Some of you may remember this. Someone at Google for reasons still sort of unknown by accident or deliberately moved the border between Nicaragua and Costa Rica on Google maps. Nicaragua mobilized their military and took the new space from Costa Rica that Google had bequeathed it. A few phone calls later from the State Department and everything was back to normal and tensions were avoided. But if you think of what we normally take to be the basic assignments of the state, one of the key ones of these has always been cartography.

你們中有些人可能還記得這一點。谷歌的某個人出於某種原因仍不為人知，是偶然還是故意在谷歌地圖上移動了尼加拉瓜和哥斯達黎加之間的邊界。尼加拉瓜動員了他們的軍隊，並從哥斯達黎加奪取了谷歌遺贈的新空間。後來國務院打來幾個電話，一切都恢復正常，避免了緊張局勢。但是如果你想想我們通常認為是國家的基本任務，其中的一個關鍵任務一直是製圖。

The naming and mapping of what the land is itself on top of which civil society and all these things would operate. And here we see a kind of inversion of this by which the cloud platform is mapping the land on top of which states might be operating and organized. And this is not, I don't think, a kind of exceptional episode. Take for example the more immediate and long-term geographical drama for the cloud layer, I think which has seemed more striking in the ongoing what I call the Sino-Google conflicts of 2008 to the present. China hacking Google, Google pulling out of China, the NSA hacking China, NSA hacking Google, Google ghostwriting books for the State Department, Google wordlessly circumventing the last instances of state sovereignty, state oversight altogether.

公民社會和所有這些東西將在其上運行的土地本身的命名和映射。在這裡，我們看到了這種情況的一種倒置，雲平台正在映射國家可能在其上運作和組織的土地。這不是，我不認為，一種特殊的插曲。以雲層的更直接和更長期的地理戲劇為例，我認為這在我稱之為 2008 年至今的持續不斷的中谷歌衝突中似乎更為引人注目。中國黑客谷歌，谷歌撤出中國，美國國家安全局黑客中國，美國國家安全局黑客谷歌，谷歌為國務院代寫書籍，谷歌無聲地繞過國家主權的最後實例，完全是國家監督。

Not by transgressing them, but by absorbing them into their service offering. Meanwhile Chinese router software bides its time. And to be sure, the geographies at work here are often quite weird. Google a few years ago filed a series of patents for offshore data centers to be built in international waters on towers using tidal currents and available water to keep the servers cool. Now the complexities of jurisdictions suggested by a global cloud piped in from non-state space are fantastic.

不是通過違反它們，而是通過將它們吸收到他們的服務產品中。與此同時，中國路由器軟件也在等待時機。可以肯定的是，這里工作的地理位置通常很奇怪。谷歌幾年前申請了一系列離岸數據中心的專利，這些數據中心將在國際水域的塔上建造，利用潮汐流和可用水來保持服務器涼爽。現在，從非國家空間通過管道輸入的全球雲所暗示的司法管轄區的複雜性是驚人的。

But today I think they are in fact less exceptional than exemplary of a new normal. Between the hackers of the People's Liberation Army and Google there is more than I think a standoff between the proxies of two state apparatuses. Rather a fundamental conflict over the geometry of political geography itself. One bound by the territorial integrity of the state and the other by the gossamer threads of the world's information demanding to be quote organized and made useful. This is a clash between two geometries of territory.

但今天我認為它們實際上不如新常態的典範那麼特殊。在人民解放軍和谷歌的黑客之間，兩個國家機器的代理人之間的對峙比我想像的要多。而是關於政治地理學本身的幾何學的根本衝突。一個受國家領土完整的約束，另一個受世界信息的游絲束縛，要求組織起來並使之有用。這是領土的兩種幾何形狀之間的衝突。

One a subdivision of the horizontal, the other a stacking of vertical layers. One a state, the other a para state. One superimposed on top of the other at any point on the map, including us, and never resolved into some consensual cosmopolitanism, but continuing rather to grind against the grain of one another's planes. This I think characterizes the geopolitics of our moment and that plus the gravity of generalized succession, but in many ways the two are interrelated. So from here we see that contemporary cloud platforms are displacing, if not also replacing, traditional core functions of the state.

一個是水平的細分，另一個是垂直層的堆疊。一個是州，另一個是準州。一個在地圖上的任何一點上疊加在另一個之上，包括我們，並且從未解決成某種共識的世界主義，而是繼續在彼此的平面上磨擦。我認為這是我們當下地緣政治的特徵，加上普遍繼承的嚴重性，但在許多方面，兩者是相互關聯的。因此，從這裡我們可以看出，當代云平台正在取代（如果不是也取代）國家的傳統核心職能。

And for both good and ill, demonstrating new spatial and temporal models of politics and publics. Archaic states drew their authority from the regular provision of food. And over the course of modernization, more was added to the intricate bargains of Leviathan, energy, infrastructure, legal identity and standing, objective and comprehensive maps, credible currencies, flag brand loyalties. And bit by bit, each of these and more are now provided also by cloud platforms. Not necessarily as a formal replacement for the state versions, but like Google ID, simply more useful and effective for daily life.

無論好壞，都展示了政治和公眾的新時空模型。古代國家從定期提供食物中獲得權威。在現代化的過程中，利維坦、能源、基礎設施、法律身份和地位、客觀和全面的地圖、可信的貨幣、旗幟品牌忠誠度等錯綜複雜的交易中增加了更多內容。一點一滴地，這些以及更多現在也由雲平台提供。不一定是國家版本的正式替代品，但就像 Google ID 一樣，對日常生活更有用和有效。

And for these platforms, the terms of participation are not mandatory. And so because of this, their social contracts are more extractive than constitutional. These cloud polities, we could call them, draw revenue from the cognitive capital of their users who trade attention and microeconomic compliance in exchange for global infrastructural services and in turn it provides each of them with an active, discrete online identity and the license to use that infrastructure. That said, it's clear I think that we don't have really anything like a proper geopolitical theory of these transformations. Before the full ambition of the USA security apparatus was so evident, it was, for example, thought by many that the cloud was a place where states had no ultimate competence or maybe even a role to play.

對於這些平台，參與條款不是強制性的。正因為如此，他們的社會契約比憲法更具榨取性。這些雲政體，我們可以稱之為它們，從用戶的認知資本中獲取收入，這些用戶用注意力和微觀經濟合規性來換取全球基礎設施服務，反過來它為他們每個人提供了一個活躍的、離散的在線身份和使用許可那個基礎設施。也就是說，很明顯，我認為我們並沒有真正像這些轉變的適當地緣政治理論那樣的東西。例如，在美國安全機構的雄心壯志如此明顯之前，許多人認為雲是一個國家沒有最終能力甚至可能發揮作用的地方。

They were too slow, too dumb, too easily outwitted by using the right browser. States would be cored out, component by component, until nothing was left but a well-armed insurance scheme. In the long run, that may still be the outcome with modern liberal states taking their place next to ceremonial monarchs, stripped of all but symbolic authority, not necessarily replaced but displaced and misplaced to one side. But now we hear the opposite and I think equally brittle conclusion that the cloud is only the state, that it equals the state, that its totality, both figural and literal, is intrinsically totalitarian. Now despite all, I wouldn't take that bet.

他們太慢了，太笨了，使用正確的瀏覽器太容易被愚弄了。各州將逐個被淘汰，直到只剩下一個裝備精良的保險計劃。從長遠來看，這可能仍然是現代自由國家取代禮儀君主的結果，除了象徵性的權威外，其他一切都被剝奪，不一定被取代，而是被取代並錯位到一邊。但現在我們聽到相反的聲音，我認為同樣脆弱的結論是，雲只是國家，它等於國家，它的整體，無論是形象的還是字面上的，本質上都是極權主義的。現在儘管如此，我還是不會接受那個賭注。

Looking instead to the stack to come, because after all, stacks are made to be replaced by other systems, that's how they work. We observe that new forms of governance arise through the new capacities to tax flows at ports, gates, on property, on income, on attention, on clicks, on movement, on electrons, on carbon. And it's not at all clear in the long run whether cloud platforms will overwhelm state control of such flows or whether states will continue to evolve into cloud platforms, absorbing the displaced functions back onto themselves. Or whether both will split or rotate diagonally to one another or how deeply what we may now recognize as the surveillance state in the US or China will become a universal solvent of compulsory transparency and or cosmically opaque megastructure of absolute paranoia or all of the above or none of the above. So between the state, the market, and the platform, which is better designed to tax the interfaces of everyday life and to draw sovereignty thereby?

轉而關注即將到來的堆棧，因為畢竟，堆棧是用來被其他系統替換的，這就是它們的工作方式。我們觀察到，通過對港口、大門、財產、收入、注意力、點擊、移動、電子、碳等流動徵稅的新能力，出現了新的治理形式。從長遠來看，雲平台是否會壓倒國家對此類流動的控制，或者國家是否會繼續演變成雲平台，將被取代的功能吸收回自己身上，這一點一點也不清楚。或者兩者是否會分裂或相互成對角線旋轉，或者我們現在可能認為美國或中國的監視狀態將在多大程度上成為強制透明和/或絕對偏執的宇宙不透明巨型結構的普遍解決方案或以上所有或以上都不是。那麼，在國家、市場和平台之間，哪一個更適合對日常生活的界面徵稅並由此獲得主權？

It's a false choice to be sure, but one that raises the question of where to locate the proper site of governance as such. What would it mean, what would we even mean by the public if not that which is constituted by such interfaces? And where should governance, meant here as the necessary, deliberate, and enforceable composition of durable political subjects and their mediations, live if not there in the interfaces? Not in some obtuse chain of parliamentary representation, nor in some delusional and monadic individual unit, nor in some sad little community consensus powered by moral hectoring, but instead in the imminent, immediate, and exactly present interfaces that cleave us and bind us. Where should sovereignty reside if not in what is in between us and derived not from each of us individually, but from what draws the world through us?

可以肯定的是，這是一個錯誤的選擇，但它提出了一個問題，即在何處找到合適的治理場所。這意味著什麼，如果不是由這些接口構成的東西，我們甚至對公眾意味著什麼？如果不存在於界面中，治理應該存在於何處？在這裡意味著持久的政治主體及其調解的必要、深思熟慮和可執行的組合？不是在一些遲鈍的議會代錶鍊中，也不是在一些妄想和單一的個人單位中，也不是在一些由道德威懾驅動的可悲的小社區共識中，而是在即將分裂我們並束縛我們的即將發生的、直接的、準確存在的界面中。如果主權不存在於我們之間，也不是來自我們每個人，而是來自通過我們吸引世界的事物，那麼主權應該存在於何處？

And for this, I think it's critical to underscore that cloud platforms, including sometimes also state apparatuses, are exactly that, platforms. And it's important as well to recognize that platforms are not only a technical architecture, but as said, they are also an institutional form. At once, they centralize like states, scaffolding the terms of participation according to rigid but universal protocols, and at this, just as they decentralize like markets, coordinating economies not through the superimposition of fixed plans, but through interoperable and emergent interaction. As to states, platforms are perhaps a third form, coordinating through fixed protocols while scattering free-range users watched over in loving, if also disconcertingly omniscient grace. In the platform as totality, drawing the interfaces of everyday life one into another, we observe that the maximal state and the minimal state start to look weirdly similar.

為此，我認為必須強調雲平台，有時也包括國家機器，就是平台。同樣重要的是要認識到平台不僅是一種技術架構，而且如前所述，它們也是一種制度形式。它們立刻像國家一樣集權，根據嚴格但普遍的協議搭建參與條款，同時，就像它們像市場一樣去中心化，協調經濟不是通過固定計劃的疊加，而是通過可互操作和緊急的互動。至於國家，平台可能是第三種形式，通過固定的協議進行協調，同時散佈自由放養的用戶，以充滿愛心的方式監督著，如果也是令人不安的無所不知的恩典。在作為整體的平台中，將日常生活的界面一個接一個地畫進另一個，我們觀察到最大狀態和最小狀態開始看起來出奇地相似。

And from this, our own subjective enrollment is less as citizens of a polis or as homo economicus in a market, but positioned rather as users of a platform. And as I see it, the work of geopolitical theory, of design in geopolitics, is to develop a proper history, typology, and program for such platforms. This would not, I think, be a shorthand for the cloud feudalism, but models for the organization of durable alternative totalities, which would command the force of law, if not necessarily also its forms and formality. Our understanding of the political economy of platforms demands its own Hobbes and Marx and Hayek and Keynes. Okay.

由此看來，我們自己的主觀登記與其說是城邦的公民，不如說是市場上的經濟人，而是定位為平台的用戶。在我看來，地緣政治理論和地緣政治設計的工作是為此類平台開發適當的歷史、類型學和程序。我認為，這不是雲封建主義的簡寫，而是持久替代整體組織的模型，如果不一定是形式和形式，它將掌握法律的力量。我們對平台政治經濟學的理解需要自己的霍布斯、馬克思、哈耶克和凱恩斯。好的。

The cities. Placing our head slightly higher in our total image, we see that the urban fabric we inhabit has shifted from hunter-gatherer landscapes to sedentary fortresses back to itinerant mobilities between enclaves and exclaves, linking not just points within one city, but all cities in a discontiguous grid. The city layer of the stack comprises the environment of discontiguous megacities and mega-networks that situate both settlement and mobility in combined physical and virtual envelopes. These partition and subdivide access to urban space, but in their generic comprehensiveness, they may also provide for forms of accidental cosmopolitanism, ones not derived from parliamentary certificates, but from a shared physical relationship to ubiquitous infrastructure. This is possible only to the extent that the multiple grids of the city layer are also interfaces to other layers in the stack.

城市。在我們的整體形像中，將我們的頭稍微抬高一點，我們看到我們居住的城市結構已經從狩獵採集景觀轉變為久坐不動的堡壘，再回到飛地和飛地之間的流動性，不僅連接一個城市內的點，而且連接一個城市中的所有城市不連續的網格。堆棧的城市層包括不連續的特大城市和特大網絡的環境，這些網絡將定居點和流動性置於物理和虛擬的組合包絡中。這些劃分和細分進入城市空間的通道，但在它們的一般綜合性方面，它們也可能提供偶然的世界主義形式，這些形式不是來自議會證書，而是來自與無處不在的基礎設施的共享物理關係。這僅在城市層的多個網格也是堆棧中其他層的接口的情況下才有可能。

The earth layer provides the incredible energy necessary to feed the physical appetites of the city layer's composite urbanism. Its epidermal imperative for seeing and sensing is not only a substrate to the city layer, it also becomes an operative logic of interfacial control and composition. The cloud layer provides the generative and reactive ambient supercomputing that makes urban envelopes and interfaces active and brings them into other formal and informal political geographic dramas. While the cloud may see urban nodes and fabrics as like any other material for computational expression, its main switches are themselves gathered into tight rings of intensive transcontinental hubs centralizing bandwidth economies into a specific few cellular cities. Away from those bandwidth capitals, smaller cloud data centers, assembly factories, fulfillment centers, call centers, and shipping ports dot more remote geographies and gather itinerant laborers into their midst or alternatively protect themselves against all human contact.

地球層提供了令人難以置信的能量，以滿足城市層複合都市主義的生理需求。它對視覺和感知的表皮要求不僅是城市層的基底，它也成為界面控制和組合的操作邏輯。雲層提供生成性和反應性環境超級計算，使城市圍護結構和界面活躍起來，並將它們帶入其他正式和非正式的政治地理戲劇中。雖然雲可能將城市節點和結構視為與計算表達的任何其他材料一樣，但其主要交換機本身聚集在密集的橫貫大陸樞紐的緊密環中，將帶寬經濟集中到特定的幾個蜂窩城市。遠離這些帶寬資本，較小的雲數據中心、裝配廠、履行中心、呼叫中心和航運港口散佈在更偏遠的地區，並將流動工人聚集到他們中間，或者保護自己免受所有人類接觸。

In special cases, cloud platforms design their own architectural footprints by gathering their higher level cognitive managerial functions into megastructural corporate headquarters, often city scale buildings with their backs turned to their immediate location. Just above the city layer in the stack at the address layer provides a network presence for any thing within the urban landscape and for the potential of communication between them. The territories of address instances within the larger expanse of the city are named, organized, made coherent and meaningful by the interfaces that turn maps of addressable options into practical instruments. For the user, these maps cohere the range of possible interactions and transactions not only with the city layer but also with the cloud and earth layers as mediated through it. Interfaces provide a channel for the user to model and monitor her own position within the range that they describe.

在特殊情況下，雲平台通過將更高級別的認知管理功能聚集到巨型結構公司總部來設計自己的架構足跡，通常是城市規模的建築物，它們的後背轉向它們的直接位置。在地址層堆棧的城市層之上，為城市景觀中的任何事物以及它們之間的通信潛力提供了網絡存在。通過將可尋址選項的地圖轉化為實用工具的界面，城市更大範圍內地址實例的區域被命名、組織、連貫和有意義。對於用戶而言，這些地圖將可能的交互和交易範圍聯繫在一起，不僅與城市層有關，而且與通過它進行調解的雲層和地球層也有關。界面為用戶提供了一個渠道，可以在他們描述的範圍內對自己的位置進行建模和監控。

It transforms dwellers into users of an integrated energy carbon cement information aggregation adding as many points of quasi-sovereign access as they draw lines and borders and walls. Its primary architectural expression then is beside the discontinuous grid is the totality of the megastructure, erecting new typologies of control and overexposure. They also work, I wanted to make a comment in terms of another way in which the city layer, the importance of this as a site of governance. Another theorist who works on this notion of the nomos is, takes a notion of George O'Gambin of course who talks about the nomos of the camp and argues that the camp, the logic of the camp, the enclosure by which the exceptional communities excluded and placed into this quasi-legal zone. The thing about the camp and part of this question and part of the argument that we're making is in fact really in many ways the enclave that we want to observe as the real nomos are there.

它將居民轉變為綜合能源碳水泥信息聚合的用戶，在他們畫線、邊界和牆壁時添加盡可能多的準主權訪問點。它的主要建築表現在不連續的網格旁邊是巨型結構的整體，建立了新的控制和過度曝光類型。它們也起作用，我想以城市層的另一種方式發表評論，作為治理場所的重要性。另一位研究 nomos 概念的理論家是，當然採用了 George O&#39；Gambin 的概念，他談論陣營的 nomos 並爭辯說陣營，陣營的邏輯，例外社區被排除在外的圈地並置於這個準法律區域。關於營地的事情和這個問題的一部分以及我們正在提出的部分論點實際上在很多方面都是我們想要觀察的飛地，因為真正的 nomos 就在那裡。

Is that from an architectural standpoint, physically the structure of a camp is essentially indistinguishable from an enclave. What's inside and what's outside, what is inside the wall or what is outside the wall is the sovereign decision, is a sovereign decision over which the actual work, governing work of that partition, that membrane, that interface actually operates. It always goes back and forth. At any point in time there's always a kind of reversibility of this line. This is sort of the key point.

從建築學的角度來看，營地的結構在本質上與飛地沒有區別。裡面是什麼，外面是什麼，牆內或牆外是主權決定，是實際工作的主權決定，該分區的管理工作，該膜，該界面實際運行。它總是來回走動。在任何時間點，這條線總是有一種可逆性。這是關鍵點。

We were talking about this last night so I wanted to bring this into the conversation. The example of this reversibility I find most striking is, you may remember this photograph from the early 1990s, the Yugoslavian Civil War. For the most part the Yugoslavian Civil War is largely ignored in the global community. There were people with unpronounceable names doing unspeakable things for unfathomable reasons. And then this photo was taken and was on the front page of every newspaper.

我們昨晚在談論這個，所以我想把它帶入談話中。我發現這種可逆性最引人注目的例子是，你可能還記得這張 1990 年代初南斯拉夫內戰的照片。在很大程度上，南斯拉夫內戰在國際社會中基本上被忽視了。有些名字叫不出名字的人，出於莫名其妙的原因做著不可名狀的事情。然後這張照片被拍了下來，登上了每家報紙的頭版。

Their concentration camps in Europe again. The outrage was mobilized and so on. So what do we have here? We have a group of Bosnian prisoners held in a camp behind barbed wire as you see here. A photographer came in, took a picture of them and the rest of this.

他們再次在歐洲集中營。動員了憤怒等等。那麼我們這裡有什麼？正如你在這裡看到的，我們有一群波斯尼亞囚犯被關在帶刺鐵絲網後面的營地裡。一位攝影師進來，拍下了他們的照片以及其他一切。

The Serb reaction to this was saying, no, no, no, you have this all wrong. It's not that these prisoners are inside the camp and the protractor is looking at it. The photographer was inside the camp and the prisoners came to the outside and they were looking in at him. This became the big point of contestation, many lawsuits and all the rest of this. The point simply being is that between the camp and the enclave that line of partition is always reversible.

塞爾維亞人對此的反應是，不，不，不，你完全錯了。倒不是這些俘虜在營地裡面，量角器在看。攝影師在營地裡面，囚犯們來到營地外面，他們正在看著他。這成為爭論的焦點，許多訴訟和其他所有這些。簡單的一點是，在營地和飛地之間，分隔線始終是可逆的。

And the site of sovereignty if we want to understand it as such is one that is built into that. One of the, in terms of the stack, one of the peculiar things or one of the most important things of understanding the location of this is that the imbuing of that partition and that interface with computational intelligence, allowing it to oscillate between open and closed, between inside and outside according to that computational intelligence, allows the sovereignty of decision to be a function of the program, to be a function of the software that is organized and governing that particular gateway, that particular aperture, that particular orifice. And so the control of the program is in many ways the site by which the sovereignty of the decision over the partition is made real. We'll talk a bit more about interface in a moment. I want to then move to the address layer.

如果我們想這樣理解主權，那麼它就是一個內置於其中的站點。其中之一，就堆棧而言，理解其位置的奇特事物之一或最重要的事物之一是該分區的灌輸和計算智能的接口，允許它在開放和封閉之間振盪，根據計算智能，在內部和外部之間，允許決策的主權成為程序的功能，成為組織和管理特定網關、特定孔徑、特定孔口的軟件的功能。因此，在許多方面，程序的控制是對分區的決策主權得以實現的場所。稍後我們將更多地討論接口。然後我想轉到地址層。

The address layer is essential to the way in which the stack works because it makes possible, it names and enumerates anything that is possible to participate in and be enrolled in this drama. Something must have a name, it must have a number for it to have presence and for it to be able to communicate it must have this presence. Whatever it is, a thing, large, small, immaterial or so forth. In terms of the internet in the most conventional sense, and first the granularity of this, of what it is that can possibly operate can be extraordinary. In terms of the internet in the most prosaic sense, part of the problem of the address layer is we usually run out of addresses.

地址層對於堆棧的工作方式至關重要，因為它使一切成為可能，它命名並列舉了任何可能參與和登記在這部戲中的東西。某物必須有一個名字，它必須有一個數字才能存在，並且為了能夠進行通信，它必須具有這種存在。不管它是什麼，一件東西，大的、小的、非物質的等等。就最傳統意義上的互聯網而言，首先是它的粒度，它可能運行的東西可能是非同尋常的。就最普通意義上的互聯網而言，地址層的部分問題是我們通常會用完地址。

You know that in the IPv4 addresses they've all been allocated. There's only about three and a half billion possible addresses within the address space of IPv4. You know, like there's, and so forth, seven billion people in the world, it's less than one address per person. So for a real ubiquitous computing type of scenario, a different addressing mechanism is absolutely necessary to have a geography that's granular enough to actually incorporate all the things that need to be incorporated into this communicative matrix. So one of the solutions that's been worked on is IPv6.

您知道在 IPv4 地址中它們都已分配。在 IPv4 的地址空間中，可能的地址只有大約三個半億。你知道，就像世界上有 70 億人一樣，每個人都不到一個地址。因此，對於真正的無處不在的計算類型的場景，絕對需要一種不同的尋址機制來擁有足夠細粒度的地理位置，以實際將所有需要整合到該通信矩陣中的事物結合起來。因此，已經採用的解決方案之一是 IPv6。

IPv6 is a 128-bit address string, as opposed to the 16-bit for IPv4. 128-bit addressing, the theoretical, so when would this run out? Well, the theoretical address space of 128-bit address space divided by, say, seven billion people works out to something like 10 to the 23 addresses per person. Not in total, but per person. Now if you were to try to allocate 10 to the 23 addresses over the course of your life, you were going to give an internet address to every single thing you ever came in contact with over the course of your life, you would never run out of them.

IPv6 是一個 128 位地址字符串，與 IPv4 的 16 位地址字符串相反。理論上的 128 位尋址，那麼它什麼時候會用完？好吧，128 位地址空間的理論地址空間除以 70 億人可以得出大約每人 10 到 23 個地址。不是總數，而是每個人。現在，如果您嘗試將 10 個分配給 23 個地址，您將給您一生中接觸過的每一件東西都分配一個互聯網地址，您永遠不會用完他們中的。

It's not just like every piece of paper that you come in contact with or every letter on every piece of paper. It's more like the molecules and the ink on the piece of paper that you might come in contact with. Why you would assign internet addresses to each of the molecules, the ink, and the paper so they could talk to each other is a different question. But the idea of having the ability of things at completely different scales, something that exists at, say, 10 to the 9 meters and something 10 to the negative 9 meters, actually being able to exchange real Shannon information with each other is fantastic. What the bee pollen wants to say to the forest directly, we don't know.

它不僅僅是你接觸到的每一張紙或每張紙上的每一個字母。它更像是您可能接觸到的紙張上的分子和墨水。為什麼要為每個分子、墨水和紙張分配互聯網地址，以便它們可以相互交談，這是一個不同的問題。但是擁有完全不同尺度的事物的能力的想法，比如說，存在於 10 到 9 米和 10 到負 9 米的東西，實際上能夠相互交換真實的香農信息是非常棒的。蜂花粉想直接對森林說什麼，我們不知道。

But another way to think of this is that, on the other hand, is that we can also assign addresses to things that don't have mass. You could assign an address to the relations between things. You can assign an address to the microphone. We can also assign an address to the fact that I'm sitting next to the microphone for this particular period of time. That relation between two things can itself have an address.

但另一種思考方式是，另一方面，我們也可以為沒有質量的事物分配地址。您可以為事物之間的關係分配一個地址。您可以為麥克風分配一個地址。我們還可以為我在這段特定時間坐在麥克風旁邊這一事實分配一個地址。兩個事物之間的關係本身可以有一個地址。

And then if we wanted to also address where the manufacturer of the microphone, where the petroleum that went into the plastic of the microphone ultimately came from, individual circuitry, there's relations of relations of relations of relations of relations, all the way down into the turtles, all the way down into the abyss. In principle, you could exhaust 10 to the 23 addresses instantaneously, depending on how far of relations you wish to go. So, in other words, somewhere between never and instantaneously is the design space of what I call deep address as well. Now, it's important also to think about this in a more practical sense. The idea that everything would have in any, really at the level of a molecular level, can have an internet address and be part of this communicative matrix, certainly brings to mind any number of these kinds of dystopian scenarios of absolute transparency and absolute observation.

然後，如果我們還想解決麥克風製造商的問題，進入麥克風塑料的石油最終來自哪裡，個別電路，關係關係的關係，一直到烏龜，一路墜入深淵。原則上，您可以立即耗盡 10 到 23 個地址，具體取決於您希望建立多遠的關係。因此，換句話說，介於 never 和 instantaneously 之間的某個地方也是我所說的深度地址的設計空間。現在，從更實際的角度考慮這一點也很重要。任何東西都可以擁有的想法，真正在分子水平上，可以有一個互聯網地址，並成為這個交流矩陣的一部分，肯定會讓人想起許多這種絕對透明和絕對觀察的反烏托邦場景。

But at the same time, I think it's important also to understand how this kind of addressing and the assignment of an address between two things and two things that are kind of scales also in many ways, I think will prove to be an extremely important kind of compositional medium and a medium for the composition of the traces, positions and interrelations between things at different kinds of natural scales and temporalities that draws otherwise illegible forms not into a wider, into what I call the internet of Hesiotes, more than an internet of things, that making from the nano and macro scale all the way up to the other, forming these irregular alien and discontiguous meshes out of network matter and substantialized abstractions toward absolute communication and absolute in communication at once. There's multiple maps and geographies, name and number intersecting territories and rolling them into different assemblages. In other words, you can have multiple totalities at the same time. Just as we see with the Google and China situation, where we have Google in essence, I'm using them a bit metonymically, Google making a total claim over this space, China making a total claim over this space, these two totalities superimposed upon one another, grinding against each other. The same is true for the universal addressing regimes.

但與此同時，我認為了解這種尋址和地址分配在兩個事物之間以及兩個事物之間的地址分配也很重要，這在很多方面也是一種尺度，我認為這將被證明是一種極其重要的類型的組合媒介和一種媒介，用於在不同種類的自然尺度和時間性的事物之間的痕跡、位置和相互關係的組合，它把原本難以辨認的形式吸引到更廣泛的地方，進入我稱之為赫西奧特的互聯網，而不是一個事物，從納米和宏觀尺度一直到另一個，從網絡物質和實體化的抽像中形成這些不規則的外來和不連續的網格，同時實現絕對通信和絕對通信。有多個地圖和地理、名稱和數字交叉區域並將它們滾動到不同的組合中。換句話說，你可以同時擁有多個整體。就像我們看到的谷歌和中國的情況一樣，本質上我們有谷歌，我有點轉喻地使用它們，谷歌完全擁有這個空間，中國完全擁有這個空間，這兩個整體疊加在彼此，互相摩擦。通用尋址機制也是如此。

In other words, everything in the room can be addressed by one regime and it can be addressed by another regime once over. These two regimes don't necessarily have to have anything, even know anything about each other, any kind of formal compatibility. In other words, in many ways, the best defense against the pathologies of a too strict totality is the introduction of another totality. Alright, totalities against totalities. I want then to turn to the interface, which is the point in the software stack where people and things touch the cloud.

換句話說，房間裡的一切都可以由一個政權解決，也可以由另一個政權解決。這兩個政權不一定要有任何東西，甚至彼此了解，任何形式的兼容性。換句話說，在許多方面，防止過於嚴格的整體性病態的最佳防禦是引入另一個整體性。好吧，總體對總體。然後我想轉向界面，這是軟件堆棧中人和物接觸雲的點。

It's there in and as the interface that we draw the cloud as a world picture, as a cosmogram. It's there that the political theology of the cloud expresses and codifies utopias. There that the affective which is the dominant mode of the interface of our time, make the far-flung earth, cloud, city, and address layers legible for users of the stack who couldn't possibly map the cause and effect relations of even their own actions as we take through it. So as you initiate what I call a column in this U shape up and down the stack, you can't possibly anticipate or even understand in advance all of the forms of things that you're triggering through supply chains, through the vast logistical networks, through so forth and so on. Interfaces are part of the way in which we try to make sense of the systems that we, into which we locate ourselves.

它就在那裡，作為界面，我們把雲畫成一幅世界圖畫，一幅宇宙圖。在那裡，雲的政治神學表達和編纂了烏托邦。在那裡，情感是我們這個時代界面的主導模式，使遙遠的地球、雲、城市和地址層對於堆棧的用戶來說是清晰的，他們甚至不可能映射他們的因果關係自己的行動，因為我們通過它。因此，當你在這個 U 形堆棧中啟動我稱之為專欄的內容時，你不可能預測甚至提前了解你通過供應鏈、通過龐大的物流網絡觸發的所有形式的事情，通過等等等等。界面是我們試圖理解我們所在系統的方式的一部分。

As they multiply, interfaces assemble into interfacial regimes which present and enforce systemic diagrammatic total images of how the platform can work for a user who perceives that that platform through the grammar of that same regime and whose actions are sensed and read by it in turn. That is, the interface is not only how the user sees the stack, it's also the filter through which the stack sees the user. And as we were discussing last night, it's interesting to, I think it's very important to understand the history of the interface within this particular trajectory and genealogy of the diagram. Now I define interface much more broadly. Interface is any point of contact between two complex systems which governs the condition of exchange between those systems.

隨著它們的增加，界面組合成界面機制，這些界面機制呈現並強制執行系統的圖解總體圖像，說明平台如何為用戶工作，用戶通過同一機制的語法感知該平台，並依次感知和閱讀其行為。也就是說，界面不僅是用戶看到堆棧的方式，也是堆棧看到用戶的過濾器。正如我們昨晚討論的那樣，有趣的是，我認為了解這個特定軌跡和圖表譜系中的界面歷史非常重要。現在我更廣泛地定義接口。接口是兩個複雜系統之間的任何接觸點，它控制著這些系統之間的交換條件。

So a button with words on it that you click is an interface, a closed door is an interface, an international border is an interface. But the predominant mode of the interface for our time and with Russia in the stack is the graphical user interface, which is a special kind of diagram. This is Menard's famous diagram of Napoleon's ill-fated march to Russia, as many of you know. It models seven different things at once, but the most obvious one is that the orange wedge atop indicates the number of soldiers who left Paris, who made it to Moscow. The black line represents the number who made it back from Moscow.

所以你點擊一個帶有文字的按鈕是一個界面，一扇關閉的門是一個界面，一個國際邊界是一個界面。但是我們這個時代的主要界面模式以及堆棧中的俄羅斯是圖形用戶界面，這是一種特殊的圖表。正如你們許多人所知，這是 Menard 著名的拿破崙遠征俄羅斯的圖表。它同時模擬了七種不同的事物，但最明顯的是頂部的橙色楔形表示離開巴黎、到達莫斯科的士兵人數。黑線代表從莫斯科返回的人數。

So the diagram is a way in which this extraordinary complex series of events is summarized, is reduced. The amount of information for it to resonate, for it to be legible, it has to reduce the amount of information that it represents dramatically. Beyond 99% of the information has to be reduced into something that's there. That's how it works and how it becomes legible as a mechanism and how it uses these forms of linear juxtapositions over and so on to actually work this out. But the chain of, and this is what Pierce dealt with diagrams as one of the key operations of semiotics and one of the main differentiations between Paris and Sosiori and semiotics.

因此，圖表是總結、簡化這一系列非常複雜的事件的一種方式。它要引起共鳴的信息量，要使它清晰易讀，就必須大大減少它所代表的信息量。必須將超過 99% 的信息簡化為現有的內容。這就是它的工作原理，它作為一種機制變得清晰易讀，以及它如何使用這些形式的線性並置等等來實際解決這個問題。但是鏈，這就是 Pierce 將圖表作為符號學的關鍵操作之一，以及 Paris 和 Sosiori 與符號學之間的主要區別之一所處理的。

But for diagrams you have a one-way chain of representation. There's an event that happened in the world, and then they bubble up and are reduced, encoded if you like, encrypted into a diagrammatic image. But the cause relationship is essentially one way. The representational chain is one way. The way it was graphically user interfaces work as a mode of the diagram is to double that chain of representation.

但是對於圖表，你有一個單向的表示鏈。世界上發生了一個事件，然後它們冒泡並減少，如果你願意，可以編碼，加密成圖形圖像。但因果關係本質上是一種方式。代表性鍊是一種方式。圖形用戶界面作為圖表模式的工作方式是將表示鏈加倍。

There are diagrams that not only represent complex and synthesize complex systemic events. When you manipulate that diagram, when you move the lever where you click the button, it causes, that chain of representation goes essentially back through the network to affect the thing that is being represented. So it's both an image that is a tool and a tool that is an image. A visual, equipment that has become visual and a representation that has in fact become technological in this regard. Which as we know, it causes as many problems as it solves.

有些圖表不僅代表複雜的，而且綜合了複雜的系統事件。當你操縱那個圖表時，當你移動你點擊按鈕的槓桿時，它會導致，表示鏈基本上通過網絡返回影響正在表示的事物。所以它既是作為工具的圖像，也是作為圖像的工具。視覺，設備已經成為視覺，並且在這方面實際上已經成為技術的表示。正如我們所知，它引起的問題與它解決的問題一樣多。

And to that, we can see that continuing this genealogical line, we see that earlier hand-based tools may have passed for a moment into iconic point and click. The recent tools we worked with were held in our hands, and then for a moment they became pictures of things that when you click on them, something like that thing might happen. I click on the printer and printing happens in the world. But now in a way they return to a more sort of form of embodied gesture and perception. Including in many ways the app sub-platforms that introduce new interfacial capacities into generic hardware.

對此，我們可以看到延續這條譜系，我們看到早期的基於手動的工具可能已經暫時轉變為標誌性的點擊。我們最近使用的工具都握在我們的手中，然後有那麼一刻，它們變成了事物的圖片，當你點擊它們時，可能會發生類似的事情。我點擊打印機，打印就發生在世界上。但現在在某種程度上，他們又回到了一種更具體的姿態和感知形式。包括以多種方式將新的界面功能引入通用硬件的應用程序子平台。

But for this naturalistic synthesis of cognition and interfaciality, for some interfacial forms, for example, the generic, what we call generically augmented reality, the metaphorical space between the icon and what is represented, or between the interface and the platform it interfaces, begins to implode. Subsequently, some platform totalities are then drawn into what we can only call a kind of theologic projection, for which the work of anamnesis is externalized into these perceptual and instrumental events, which provide both signification and the significance of objects and events, as well as the terms of encounter that the user should have with them. So the most imminent and obvious accident of augmented reality is, I suppose, the kind of deeply granular pervasive advertising by which our embodied perceptions and gestures generate the monetizable exchange value of the network user profile. ARs, where micro-targeting business models of cognitive capitalism melt into the choreography of the mobile user subject. The work that that user subject already does to perfect the testing algorithms for search engines is thus scaled from finger points and clicks to the very musculature and dance of dwelling itself.

但是對於認知和界面性的這種自然主義綜合，對於某些界面形式，例如，通用的，我們通常稱之為增強現實，圖標和所代表的東西之間，或者界面和它所連接的平台之間的隱喻空間，開始了內爆。隨後，一些平台整體性被引入我們只能稱之為一種神學投射的東西，為此，回憶的工作被外化到這些感知和工具事件中，這些事件提供了對象和事件的意義和意義，以及用戶應該與他們接觸的條款。因此，我認為，增強現實最直接和最明顯的意外是那種深度顆粒化的無處不在的廣告，通過這種廣告，我們具體的感知和手勢會產生網絡用戶配置文件的可貨幣化交換價值。 AR，認知資本主義的微目標商業模式融入了移動用戶主體的編排。因此，該用戶主體已經為完善搜索引擎的測試算法所做的工作從手指點和點擊擴展到居住本身的肌肉組織和舞蹈。

However, I fear that ultimately a less secular danger is latent in AR, and that its most killer app is not marketing but fundamentalist religion. AR promises the design of a differential sacrality whereby the Schmittian, Manichean, political theological segmentation of the whole world into friend and enemy becomes a direct literal annotation of the life world, a subtitling of clean and unclean, ours and theirs, sacred and profane, empire and rebel forces, orc and not orc, red team, blue team. And so we fear then a kind of militarization of cognition itself as atavistic fundamentalisms move from the direct augmentation of reality, once nevertheless requiring a kind of textual interpretations, but now to new political theology, where new political theologies now emerge alongside them. And this again, we have layers of totalities on top of totalities. But here, the elemental terms of the superimposition is the catechism of war.

然而，我擔心最終 AR 中潛藏著一種不那麼世俗的危險，它最殺手級的應用不是營銷而是原教旨主義宗教。 AR 承諾設計一種不同的神聖性，由此，施密特式、摩尼教式、政治神學將整個世界劃分為朋友和敵人，成為生活世界的直接文字註釋，乾淨與不潔、我們的與他們的、神聖與褻瀆的副標題，帝國和叛軍，獸人和非獸人，紅隊，藍隊。因此，我們擔心一種認知本身的軍事化，因為返祖原教旨主義從現實的直接增強轉移，曾經需要一種文本解釋，但現在轉向新的政治神學，新的政治神學現在與他們一起出現。再一次，我們在整體之上有多層整體。但在這裡，疊加的基本術語是戰爭教義。

So you see, for any kind of theological model, which oftentimes is a sort of differentiation of the food or the people or the land, a segmentation of possession, of cleanliness, there's fortunately been a level of necessary textual interpretation on the part of everyone to understand what it is, what it's supposed to do, eat or not eat. We don't go around smashing the Amalekites all the time. But when those prescriptions and those descriptions are literally superimposed onto what one sees, I think that the temptation for forms of fundamentalist cognition are to, the gravity of that temptation will be irresistible. Not just for the Abrahamic monotheisms that we have, but for new forms that will emerge. Okay.

所以你看，對於任何一種神學模型，它通常是食物或人或土地的一種區分，財產的分割，清潔度，幸運的是每個人都有一定程度的必要文本解釋了解它是什麼，它應該做什麼，吃還是不吃。我們不會一直四處粉碎亞瑪力人。但是當那些處方和那些描述被字面地疊加到一個人所看到的東西上時，我認為原教旨主義認知形式的誘惑是，這種誘惑的嚴重性將是不可抗拒的。不僅是為了我們現有的亞伯拉罕一神論，而且是為了即將出現的新形式。好的。

Lastly then. Vizas. One of the useful paradoxes of the user's position as a person as a political subject is the contradictory impulse directed simultaneously towards his artificial over-individualization and his ultimate pluralization, with both participating differently in the geopolitics of transparency. For example, the quantified self movement, which in California, where I'm from, really is a true medical theology, is haunted by this contradiction. And how so?

最後呢。維扎斯。用戶作為一個政治主體的人的位置的一個有用的悖論是同時指向他人為的過度個性化和他最終的多元化的矛盾衝動，兩者都以不同的方式參與透明的地緣政治。例如，在我來自加利福尼亞州的量化自我運動確實是一種真正的醫學神學，它被這種矛盾所困擾。怎麼會這樣？

At first, the intensity and granularity of the new informational mirror image convinces the user of his individuated coherency and stability as a subject. He's flattered by the singular beauty of his reflection. And this is why quantified self is so popular with those inspired by an X-Men reading of Atlas Shrugged. But as more data is added to the diagram that quantifies his interactions with the outside world, and to the outside's, quote unquote, impact on his person, the health of his microbial biome in his gut, the immediate and long-term environmental conditions, his various epidemiological contexts, and so on, the quality of everything that is not him comes to overcoat and overwhelm any notion of himself as a withdrawn and self-contained agent. Like Theseus' paradox, where after every component of a thing has been replaced, nothing original remains but a metaphysical husk.

首先，新信息鏡像的強度和粒度使用戶相信他作為主體的個性化連貫性和穩定性。他為自己倒影的奇異之美而受寵若驚。這就是為什麼量化自我在那些受到 X 戰警閱讀《阿特拉斯聳聳肩》啟發的人中如此受歡迎的原因。但是隨著越來越多的數據被添加到圖表中，量化他與外界的相互作用，以及對外界的影響，引用不引用，對他的人的影響，他腸道中微生物群落的健康，當前和長期的環境條件，他的各種流行病學背景等等，所有不是他的東西的品質都會掩蓋並壓倒任何關於他自己是一個孤僻和自給自足的代理人的想法。就像忒修斯的悖論，在事物的每個組成部分都被替換之後，除了形而上學的外殼之外，沒有任何東西是原始的。

You've probably heard this in terms of George Washington's axe. This is the original axe with which he cut down the cherry tree. We had replaced the handle three times and the head four times, but it occupies the same space. This is the Theseus paradox. And like this, the user is confronted in a way with a kind of existential lesson that at any point, he is only the intersection of many streams.

你可能聽說過喬治華盛頓的斧頭。這是他砍櫻桃樹的原始斧頭。我們更換了三次手柄和四次頭部，但它佔用的空間相同。這就是忒修斯悖論。像這樣，用戶在某種程度上面臨著一種存在主義的教訓，即在任何時候，他都只是許多流的交匯點。

So at first, the subject position of the user overproduces individual identity, but in the continuance of that same mechanism, it then succeeds in exploding it. So, too much identity, crash of identity. The geopolitics of the user we have now is inadequate, including, I think, many of its oppositional modes. The Oedipal discourse of privacy and transparency in relation to the evil eye of the uninvited stepfather is probably in its own sort of way a kind of necessary phase towards real alternatives, but it has tremendously fragile limits worth spelling out. And by this I mean WikiLeaks, Assange, Tor, this sort of thing.

所以一開始，用戶的主體地位過度生產了個人身份，但在同一機制的延續下，它成功地引爆了個人身份。所以，太多的身份，身份的崩潰。我們現在擁有的用戶的地緣政治是不充分的，包括，我認為，它的許多反對模式。與不請自來的繼父的邪惡之眼有關的隱私和透明的俄狄浦斯話語可能在某種程度上是通向真正選擇的必要階段，但它有非常脆弱的局限性值得闡明。我指的是維基解密、阿桑奇、Tor 之類的東西。

A geopolitics of computation predicated at its core on the biopolitics of privacy, self-immunization from any compulsory appearance in front of publics, of platforms, of states, of others, can sometimes also serve a psychological internalization of a now ascendant general economy of secession, castration, anxiety, whatever, resulting in the pre-paranoia of withdrawal into an atomic and anomic dream of self-mastery that elsewhere we call the neoliberal subject. The space in which the discursive formation of the subject meets the technical constitution of the user enjoys, however, a much larger horizon than the one defined by these kinds of individuation. Consider, for example, proxy users. uProxy is a project supported by Google Ideas. A friend of mine is a programmer there on this project.

以隱私生命政治為核心的計算地緣政治，自我免疫免於在公眾、平台、國家和其他人面前的任何強制性出現，有時也可以服務於現在方興未艾的一般分裂經濟的心理內化，閹割，焦慮等等，導致退縮到原子和失範的自我控制夢想中的偏執狂前，我們在其他地方稱之為新自由主義主體。然而，主體的話語形成與用戶的技術構造相結合的空間，比由這些類型的個性化所定義的視野要寬廣得多。例如，考慮代理用戶。 uProxy 是 Google Ideas 支持的一個項目。我的一個朋友是這個項目的程序員。

uProxy is a browser modification that lets users easily pair up across distances to allow someone in one location, trapped in the bad internets, to send information unencumbered through the virtual position of another user in another location, enjoying the good internets. In other words, two users can essentially combine into a single position as far as the internet is concerned. So for, again, this is Google Ideas, Jared Cohen's group, and one who can imagine the special interest of baking this into Chrome at scale. For Sino-Google geopolitics, the platform could theoretically be available at billion-user scale. To those who live in China, even if Google is not technically in China, because those users, acting through and as foreign proxies, are themselves, as far as the internet geography is concerned, both in and not in China.

uProxy 是一種瀏覽器修改版，它讓用戶可以輕鬆地跨越距離配對，讓身在一個地方、陷入糟糕互聯網中的人可以通過另一個用戶在另一個地方的虛擬位置不受阻礙地發送信息，享受良好的互聯網。換句話說，就互聯網而言，兩個用戶基本上可以合併到一個位置。因此，再一次，這就是 Google Ideas，Jared Cohen 的團隊，以及可以想像將其大規模融入 Chrome 的特殊興趣的人。對於中谷地緣政治，該平台理論上可以在十億用戶規模上使用。對於居住在中國的人來說，即使谷歌在技術上不在中國，因為這些用戶通過外國代理人並作為外國代理人，就互聯網地理而言，他們自己既在中國又不在中國。

Developers of uProxy believe it would take two simultaneous and synchronized man-in-the-middle attacks to hack the link, and at population scale that would prove difficult, even for the best state actors, at least for now. More disconcerting, perhaps, is that such a framework could also just as easily be used to withdraw data from a paired site. That is, one you might be paired with in ways in which you're not necessarily volunteering for. A paired user may be one that should be left alone for good reasons. Some plural user subject that is conjoined by a proxy link or other means could be composed, however, of many different types of addressable subjects.

uProxy 的開發人員認為，需要同時進行兩次同步的中間人攻擊才能破解該鏈接，而且在人口規模上這將被證明是困難的，即使對於最好的國家行為者來說也是如此，至少目前如此。也許更令人不安的是，這樣的框架也可以很容易地用於從配對站點提取數據。也就是說，您可能會以不一定是自願的方式與之配對。配對的用戶可能是出於充分的理由應該單獨留下的用戶。然而，通過代理鏈接或其他方式連接的一些複數用戶主題可以由許多不同類型的可尋址主題組成。

Two humans in different countries, or a human and a sensor, a sensor and a bot, a human and a robot, and a sensor, a whatever and a whatever. In principle, any one of these subcomponents could not only be part of multiple conjoined positions, but might not know or need to know all of the different types of addresses. They would not always know which meta-user, let's say, they contribute to any more than the microbial biome in your gut needs to know your name. Spoofing with honeypot identities between humans and non-humans, then, is measured according to the theoretical address space of the address that we spoke of, the 10 to the 23 per person, or some other massive universal addressing scheme such that the abyssal quantity and range of, quote, things that could participate in these vast pluralities includes both real and fictional addressable persons, objects, locations, even addressable massless relations between things, any one of which could be a sub-user. And so, while the stack, and the stack to come, which we call the black stack for lack of a better name, stages the death of the user, in one sense, the eclipse of a certain resolute humanism, but does so because they also bring the multiplication and proliferation of other kinds of non-human users, including sensors, financial algorithms, various robots from nanometric to landscape scale, any combination of which might enter into a relationship as part of a composite user.

不同國家的兩個人，或者一個人和一個傳感器，一個傳感器和一個機器人，一個人和一個機器人，還有一個傳感器，一個隨便什麼。原則上，這些子組件中的任何一個不僅可以是多個聯合位置的一部分，而且可能不知道或不需要知道所有不同類型的地址。他們並不總是知道哪個元用戶，比方說，他們對你的腸道微生物群需要知道你的名字的貢獻更多。然後，根據我們談到的地址的理論地址空間，即每人 10 到 23，或其他一些大規模的通用尋址方案，例如深淵數量和可以參與這些龐大復數的事物的範圍包括真實和虛構的可尋址人、物體、位置，甚至事物之間可尋址的無質量關係，其中任何一個都可以是子用戶。因此，雖然堆棧和即將到來的堆棧（由於缺少更好的名稱而被我們稱為黑色堆棧）呈現了用戶的死亡，從某種意義上說，某種堅定的人道主義的日蝕，但這樣做是因為它們還帶來了其他類型的非人類用戶的繁殖和擴散，包括傳感器、金融算法、從納米級到景觀級的各種機器人，它們的任何組合都可能作為複合用戶的一部分建立關係。

And so, this is also where, for example, the recent shift by major cloud platforms into robotics may prove especially vital, because like Darwin's tortoises finding their way to different Galapagos Islands, the Cambrian explosion in robotics upcoming, coming near you soon, sees speciation occur in the wild, not just in the lab, and with us as their inside, not just on the outside. And so, as robotics and cloud hardware at all scales blend into a kind of common category of machine, such that a robot that's built is not just programmed once and set out there, but is able to, when it encounters something unusual in its environment, is able to access options in the cloud, becomes informed by it, they literally evolve into the wild. As it does so, it will become unclear and jittery, and it will become a very, very difficult machine to handle. And so, in general, everyday human robotic interaction, whether one is encountering a fully autonomous, partially autonomous, or completely human piloted synthetic intelligence, everyday interactions replay the Turing test over and over. You know, is this a person or a machine?

因此，這也是其中，例如，最近主要雲平台向機器人技術的轉變可能被證明特別重要，因為就像達爾文的烏龜找到不同的加拉帕戈斯群島一樣，機器人技術的寒武紀大爆發即將到來，很快就會靠近你，看到物種形成發生在野外，而不僅僅是在實驗室，並且以我們為他們的內部，而不僅僅是在外部。因此，隨著各種規模的機器人技術和雲硬件融合到一種常見的機器類別中，這樣構建的機器人不僅可以編程一次並在那裡出發，而且能夠在遇到環境中的異常情況時，能夠訪問云中的選項，從中獲得信息，它們從字面上演變為野外。當它這樣做的時候，它會變得不清楚和緊張，它會變成一台非常非常難操作的機器。因此，一般來說，日常的人類機器人交互，無論是遇到完全自主、部分自主還是完全由人類駕駛的人工智能，日常交互都會一遍又一遍地重演圖靈測試。你知道，這是人還是機器？

Is there a person behind this machine? And if so, how much is a person? In time, the answer may come to matter less, as the postulation of the human, or even carbon-based life, as the threshold measure of intelligence, and as the qualifying gauge of a political ethics, may seem like tasteless, vestigial racism, replaced by less anthropocentric frames of reference. The position of the user then maps only very incompletely onto any one individual person or body. From the perspective of the platform, looking out, what looks like one may really be many, and what looks like many may only be one.

這台機器後面有人嗎？如果是這樣，一個人多少錢？隨著時間的推移，答案可能會變得不那麼重要，因為人類甚至碳基生命的假設，作為智力的門檻衡量標準，作為政治道德的合格衡量標準，可能看起來像無味的、退化的種族主義，取而代之的是不那麼以人類為中心的參考系。然後，用戶的位置只能非常不完整地映射到任何一個人或身體上。站在平台的角度，往外看，看似一的可能真的是多，看似多的可能只是一。

And so, elaborate schizophrenia's already take hold in our early negotiation of these composite user positions. The neoliberal subject position makes absurd demands on people as users, as quantified selves, and as a result, the user is perceived by the user as sysadmins of their own psyche. And from this, paranoia and narcissism are two symptoms of the same disposition, two functions of the same mask. For one, the mask works to pluralize identity, according to the subjective demands of the user position as a composite alloy. And for another, it defends against those same demands on behalf of the illusory integrity of a self-identity fracturing around its existential core.

因此，精心設計的精神分裂症已經在我們對這些複合用戶位置的早期談判中佔據一席之地。新自由主義主體立場對作為用戶的人提出了荒謬的要求，作為量化的自我，結果，用戶被用戶視為他們自己心靈的系統管理員。由此看來，偏執狂和自戀是同一性情的兩種症狀，是同一面具的兩種功能。一方面，根據使用者作為複合合金的主觀需求，面具可以使身份多元化。另一方面，它代表圍繞其存在核心的自我認同的虛幻完整性來抵制那些相同的要求。

So ask yourself, is that user anonymous because he's dissolved into the vital and machinic plurality, or because public identification threatens individual self-mastery, sense of autonomy, social unaccountability? The former and the latter are two very different politics, but use the same masks, and the former is the same mask. And again, use the same software suites. Given the schizophrenic economy of the user, first over-individuated and then multiplied and de-differentiated, this really isn't an unexpected or necessarily neurotic reaction at all. It is, however, fragile and inadequate.

所以問問你自己，那個用戶匿名是因為他融入了生機勃勃的多元化，還是因為公開身份威脅到個人的自我控制、自主感和社會責任感？前者和後者是兩種截然不同的政治，卻使用同樣的面具，前者是同樣的面具。同樣，使用相同的軟件套件。考慮到用戶的精神分裂經濟，首先是過度個性化，然後是倍增和去分化，這真的不是一種意外的或必然的神經質反應。然而，它是脆弱和不充分的。

So, in the construction of the user as an aggregate profile that both is and is not specific to any one entity, there is no identity to deduce other than the pattern of interaction between partial actors. We may find, perhaps ironically, that the user position of the stack actually has far less in common with the neoliberal form of the subject than some of today's oppositionalist formats for political subjectivity that hope, quite rightly, to challenge and reform and re-establish the state stack as it is currently configuring itself. However, something like, for example, a digital bill of rights for users, Tim Berners-Lee's proposal, one of the founding fathers of the WWW protocol, despite its cosmopolitan optimism, becomes a much more complicated and fragile and limited solution when the discrete identification of a user is both so heterogeneous and so fluid. Are all proxy composite users one user? Is anything with an IP address a user?

因此，在將用戶構建為既特定於又不特定於任何一個實體的聚合配置文件時，除了部分參與者之間的交互模式之外，沒有任何身份可以推斷。我們可能會發現，也許具有諷刺意味的是，堆棧的用戶位置實際上與主題的新自由主義形式的共同點遠不如當今政治主觀性的一些反對主義形式，這些形式非常正確地希望挑戰、改革和重建當前正在配置的狀態堆棧。然而，例如，用戶的數字權利法案，WWW 協議的創始人之一蒂姆伯納斯李的提議，儘管它具有世界主義的樂觀主義，但當離散的用戶的身份識別既是異類又是流動的。所有代理複合用戶都是一個用戶嗎？有IP地址的東西是用戶嗎？

If not, why not? Is this throne reserved for one species, humans? When is any one animal of that species a user? When is it not? Any time that it is generating information, is it then a user?

如果不是，為什麼不呢？這個寶座是為一個物種——人類——保留的嗎？該物種的任何一種動物何時成為用戶？什麼時候不是？每當它生成信息時，它就是用戶嗎？

If so, that policy would, in practice, crisscross and trespass some of our most basic concepts of the political and perhaps for that reason alone might be a good place to start. In addition to the fortification of the user as a geopolitical subject, we also require then a redefinition of the political subject as such in relation to the real operations of the user, based not on homo economicus or parliamentary liberalism, nor on post-structuralist linguistic reduction, nor on the will to secede into the moral safety of individual privacy and withdrawn from coercion. Instead, the definition should focus on composing and elevating sites of governance from the immediate suturing interfacial material between subjects in the stitches and traces and the folds of interactions between bodies and things at a distance, congealing into different networks, demanding very different kinds of platform sovereignty. I want to then turn in anticipation of conclusion toward not the stack we have, but the stack we might have, the stack to come. Hopefully by now we have some map of this, some way to visualize the stack and how it organizes generic columns up and down.

如果是這樣，該政策在實踐中將交叉和侵入我們的一些最基本的政治概念，也許僅出於這個原因可能是一個很好的起點。除了將用戶強化為地緣政治主體之外，我們還需要重新定義與用戶實際操作相關的政治主體本身，而不是基於經濟人或議會自由主義，也不基於後結構主義語言學減少，也不會脫離個人隱私的道德安全和退出脅迫的意願。相反，該定義應該側重於從縫合和痕跡中主體之間的直接縫合界面材料以及遠處身體與事物之間相互作用的褶皺中構成和提升治理場所，凝結成不同的網絡，需要非常不同類型的平台主權。然後，我希望得出結論，而不是我們擁有的堆棧，而是我們可能擁有的堆棧，即將到來的堆棧。希望現在我們已經有了一些地圖，一些可視化堆棧的方法以及它如何上下組織通用列。

Without too much trouble, we can get to the bottom of this. We can model a baseline scenario for the individual human user or citizen subject, named and profiled, using a vanilla platform interface connected to a stable mix of IPV4 and 6 address websites, smart objects, situated in a specific city, connected to a public-private Wi-Fi jurisdictions governed by the application architectures of the global cloud platform, such as Google and the Earth layer, drawing itself local hydroelectric energy as well as the coal plant, and the power of the servers accessed by its users. That we could say is a kind of our generic column. But we can also imagine another stack in which the user is, for example, an environmental sensor. The interface is a data reporting, here's our generic column, the interface is a data reporting API.

不用太麻煩，我們就可以查個水落石出。我們可以為個人用戶或公民主題建模基線場景，命名和配置文件，使用連接到 IPV4 和 6 地址網站的穩定組合的香草平台界面，位於特定城市的智能對象，連接到公共-由全球雲平台應用程序架構管理的私人 Wi-Fi 管轄區，如穀歌和地球層，汲取當地水力發電和燃煤電廠的能源，以及用戶訪問的服務器的電力。我們可以說這是我們的一種通用專欄。但我們也可以想像另一個堆棧，其中用戶是例如環境傳感器。接口是數據上報，這裡是我們的通用欄目，接口是數據上報API。

Addresses are assigned to individual threshold events as detected, all working in a city layer of a threatened rainforest. As part of a transnational carbon risk reinsurance cloud platform and pulling low wattage power from plentiful solar and chemical energy sources. We can also draw another possible stack in which an assemblage of two robots, three delimited algorithms activating from afar, and three humans on three different continents constitute the composite user. Linking them at the interface layer through a Shanghai-nese fork of Android that translates between five or six different languages at work. We can imagine them mapping and acting upon a specific culinary agricultural assemblage that has been addressed according to the Bronze Age dietary conventions located in multiple, even hostile city states.

地址被分配給檢測到的各個閾值事件，所有事件都在受威脅的雨林的城市層中工作。作為跨國碳風險再保險雲平台的一部分，從豐富的太陽能和化學能源中獲取低瓦數電力。我們還可以繪製另一個可能的堆棧，其中兩個機器人的組合、三個從遠處激活的定界算法以及三個不同大陸上的三個人構成了複合用戶。通過在工作中可在五六種不同語言之間進行翻譯的 Android 上海版在界面層將它們鏈接起來。我們可以想像他們根據位於多個甚至敵對城市國家的青銅時代飲食慣例解決的特定烹飪農業組合進行映射和行動。

Accessing a mix of several public cloud applications as well as encrypted proprietary databases sucking up and all of the above stew utility electrons. Or an unnamed kid at a quasi-public 3D printing works in Lagos using two different open source additive manufacturing APIs, downloaded CAD scripts and YouTube uploader for Windows to spoof the address of printed bicycle cranks that will now phone home and report that they are actually licensed and operational in Cape Town. But which are really being used to haul bags of cement to the fourth floor of a building that shows up as having only two floors on Google Earth real time. At least when queried from South African IPs all running on the AFRINIC version of Google's no carrier free continent cloud sucking energy from a Franco-Chinese nuclear plant on the shores of Lake Chad and chewing up circuitry minerals recycled from e-waste drone lifts from Bosongoa in Central African Republic courtesy of the All African Defense Forces and so on. It's not hard to come up with the political science fiction scenarios but it is hard to specify the shape of them as working in combination.

訪問多個公共雲應用程序的組合以及加密的專有數據庫吸收了上述所有燉煮的實用電子。或者在拉各斯一家準公共 3D 打印公司工作的未具名孩子使用兩種不同的開源增材製造 API、下載的 CAD 腳本和適用於 Windows 的 YouTube 上傳器來偽造打印自行車曲柄的地址，這些曲柄現在會打電話回家並報告它們實際上是在開普敦獲得許可和運營。但它們實際上被用來將一袋袋水泥拖到一棟建築物的四樓，而這棟建築物在谷歌地球上實時顯示只有兩層樓。至少在從南非 IP 查詢時，所有 IP 都運行在 Google 的無載體無載體大陸雲的 AFRINIC 版本上，從乍得湖沿岸的法中核電站吸取能量，並咀嚼從 Bosongoa 的電子垃圾無人機升降機回收的電路礦物在中非共和國，由全非國防軍等提供。想出政治科幻場景並不難，但很難將它們的形狀指定為組合工作。

If only because any of the layers in any of these scenarios, what exists in any one of these layers, any scenarios could just as easily be combined with layers in any of the others. Take two to five layers from one, stir and simmer. So instead of neatly homogenous utopias or dystopias it's the divergent mixtures that resist designation as they generate and draw upon the energy loss and radiant waste materials of whatever is most distant or closest at hand that may nevertheless be the most crucial. All it wishes to say is that the project of the stack is not just one of description, it's also one of projection. It's a design problem.

如果僅僅因為任何這些場景中的任何層，這些層中任何一個層中存在的東西，任何場景都可以很容易地與任何其他場景中的層組合。從一層取二到五層，攪拌並燉煮。因此，與其說是完全同質的烏托邦或反烏托邦，不如說是不同的混合物，它們在產生和吸收能量損失和輻射廢料時會抵抗指定，這些廢料可能是最重要的。它只想說，堆棧的項目不僅僅是一種描述，它也是一種投影。這是一個設計問題。

What stacks do, the way they have session with the architecture, their advantage is that anything can be pulled out of one layer and anything else can be added. They're inviting replacement. I was, and there's a fair bit of competition for the colonization of the stack as such. I was, just a few weeks ago I was, I got a bunch of emails in my inbox because, this was like three weeks ago, a bunch of emails in my inbox. Der Spiegel in Berlin had published a bunch of new of the Snowden leaks including a bunch of, you know, usually there's just crazy PowerPoints.

堆棧的作用，它們與體系結構進行會話的方式，它們的優勢在於可以從一層中提取任何東西，也可以添加任何其他東西。他們正在邀請更換。我是，並且對於堆棧的殖民化存在相當大的競爭。我是，就在幾週前，我的收件箱裡有一堆電子郵件，因為就像三週前一樣，我的收件箱裡有一堆電子郵件。柏林的 Der Spiegel 發布了一堆新的斯諾登洩密事件，包括一堆，你知道，通常只有瘋狂的 PowerPoint。

There's a whole reading to be done of just the psychotic PowerPoint semiotics of the NSA. But this slide in particular caught my attention. This is the map that comes from a project, NSA project called Treasure Map. And it's based on what was, unaware to me was NSA, the way in which they mapped their domain. Which has a geographical layer, a physical network layer, a knowledgable network layer, which could roughly be like the address layer.

只需完整閱讀 NSA 的精神病 PowerPoint 符號學即可。但這張幻燈片特別引起了我的注意。這是來自一個名為 Treasure Map 的 NSA 項目的地圖。它基於的是，我不知道的是 NSA，他們映射域的方式。其中有一個地理層，一個物理網絡層，一個知識網絡層，大致可以像地址層一樣。

And something called the cyber persona layer, which is different than the persona layer. So, I did a bit of research on this and this map is actually not secret. It had been around for a while, though hidden, but not particularly public. All of which is to say, is that the model is one that there's a fair bit of momentum over who will determine what replaces what and at what time. And in many ways the mobilization towards alternatives can be understood as the most pressing design problem, political problem, assignment of our time.

還有一個叫做網絡角色層的東西，它不同於角色層。所以，我對此做了一些研究，這張地圖實際上並不是秘密。它已經存在了一段時間，雖然是隱藏的，但並不是特別公開。所有這一切都是說，該模型是一個有相當大勢頭的人將決定什麼將取代什麼以及什麼時候。在許多方面，對替代方案的動員可以被理解為我們時代最緊迫的設計問題、政治問題和任務。

I'll conclude then with some thoughts on both the stack we have and this idea of the black stack. Some of this text is taken from this piece called Black Stack, which was published in Eflux a while ago, which was the keynote lecture I had given at Transmedia a la last year in Berlin. The title simply comes from, I was doing a joint keynote with Metahaven, good friends of mine who are working with me on this book. They have a book coming out called Black Transparency, I have a book coming out, The Stack, which they will call The Black Stack, will be the talk. But nevertheless, it stuck as this name for, the stand-in name for the stack to come.

最後，我將對我們擁有的堆棧和黑色堆棧的想法進行一些思考。本文的部分內容摘自這篇名為 Black Stack 的文章，該文章不久前發表在 Eflux 上，這是我去年在柏林 Transmedia 上發表的主題演講。標題只是來自，我正在與 Metahaven 聯合發表主題演講，Metahaven 是我的好朋友，他們正在與我一起寫這本書。他們有一本書要出版，叫做 Black Transparency，我有一本書要出版，The Stack，他們稱之為 The Black Stack，將成為話題。但是，儘管如此，它仍然作為這個名稱保留下來，是未來堆棧的替代名稱。

The one that we can't quite see, the one that we know is there, but we don't know quite what it is. The stack we have is defined not only then by its forms, layers and platforms and their interrelations, but then also by its content. And it's now painfully clear, leak after leak, that content is also the content of our daily communications, now weaponized against us. However, so if the panopticon effect, Foucault's famous panopticon effect, is when you don't know whether you're being watched or not, and so you behave as if you are, then we could say that the inverse panopticon effect is when you know you're being watched, but act as if you aren't. This is today's surveillance culture, exhibitionism and bad faith.

一個我們看不到的，一個我們知道的就在那裡，但我們不完全知道它是什麼。我們擁有的堆棧不僅由其形式、層和平台及其相互關係定義，而且還由其內容定義。現在非常清楚，一次又一次的洩露，這些內容也是我們日常交流的內容，現在被用來對付我們。然而，如果福柯著名的全景監獄效應是當你不知道自己是否正在被觀看時，所以你的行為就好像你在被觀看一樣，那麼我們可以說逆全景監獄效應是當你知道你正在被監視，但表現得好像你沒有被監視一樣。這就是當今的監視文化、暴露癖和不誠信。

And the emergence of stack platforms doesn't promise any solution or even any distinctions between friend and enemy within this optical geopolitics. At some dark day in the future, when considered against the Google caliphate, the NSA may even come to be seen as the public option. At least it is accountable and principled to some parliamentary limits, they will say. Rather than merely stockholder avarice and flimsy user agreements. So if we take 9-11, for example, as the roll-in and the roll-out of the Patriot Act, as the year zero for the USA's massive data gathering, encapsulation and digestion campaign, one that we're only really now beginning to comprehend, even as parallel projects from Russia and China and Europe, Canada maybe, I don't know, are sure to come to light in time, then we can imagine the entirety of network communication for the last decade, the big hall, as a single deep and wide digital simulation of the world, or at least a significant portion of it.

堆棧平台的出現並不能保證任何解決方案，甚至不能在這種光學地緣政治中區分敵友。在未來某個黑暗的日子裡，當考慮反對谷歌哈里發時，國家安全局甚至可能被視為公共選擇。他們會說，至少它在某些議會限制下是負責任和有原則的。而不僅僅是股東的貪婪和脆弱的用戶協議。因此，如果我們以 9-11 為例，作為愛國者法案的引入和推出，作為美國海量數據收集、封裝和消化活動的零年，我們現在才真正做到這一點開始理解，即使來自俄羅斯、中國和歐洲、加拿大的平行項目，也許，我不知道，肯定會及時曝光，然後我們可以想像過去十年的整個網絡通信，大廳，作為世界的單一深度和廣泛數字模擬，或者至少是其中的重要部分。

It's an archive, a library of the real. Its existence as the purloined property of the state, just as a physical fact, is almost a cult. Almost. The geophilosophical profile of the big hall, from the energy necessary to preserve it, to its governing instrumentality, understood as both a text, a very large text, and as a machine with various utilities, overflows the traditional politics of software. Its story is much more Borges than Lawrence Lessig.

它是一個檔案館，一個真實的圖書館。它作為國家被盜財產的存在，就像一個物理事實，幾乎是一種崇拜。幾乎。大禮堂的地緣哲學概況，從保護它所必需的能量，到它的管理工具，既被理解為一個文本，一個非常大的文本，又被理解為一個具有各種用途的機器，超越了傳統的軟件政治。它的故事更像是博爾赫斯而不是勞倫斯萊西格。

Its fate is as well. Can it be destroyed? Is it possible to delete this simulation, and is it even desirable to do so? Is there a trash can big enough for the big delete? Even if the plug could be pulled on all future data halls, stopping it all immediately, surely there must be a backup somewhere.

它的命運也是如此。它可以被摧毀嗎？是否可以刪除此模擬，是否需要這樣做？是否有足夠大的垃圾桶來進行大刪除？即使未來所有數據大廳的插頭都可以拔掉，立即停止，也肯定在某處有備份。

The identical double of the simulation, such that if we delete one, the other will be forever haunting history, until it's rediscovered by some future artificial intelligent archaeologist interested in its own paleolithic origins. Would we bury it, even if we could? Would we need signs around it, like those designed for the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Disposal Site, warning off unknowable future excavations? Those of us lucky enough to be alive during this 15 year span would enjoy a certain illegible immortality, curious to whatever metacognitive entity pieces us back together by our online activities, both public and private, proud and furtive, each of us rising back centuries from now, each of us a little Ozymandias of cat videos and Pornhub. In light of this, the black stack could come to mean very different things.

模擬的相同複製品，這樣如果我們刪除一個，另一個將永遠縈繞在歷史的陰影中，直到它被未來某個對其舊石器時代起源感興趣的人工智能考古學家重新發現。即使可以，我們會埋葬它嗎？我們是否需要在它周圍放置標誌，例如為尤卡山核廢料處理場設計的標誌，警告未來不可知的挖掘？我們這些幸運地活在這 15 年裡的人將享受某種難以辨認的永生，對通過我們的在線活動將我們重新組合起來的任何元認知實體感到好奇，無論是公開的還是私人的，驕傲的還是偷偷摸摸的，我們每個人都從幾個世紀前崛起現在，我們每個人都有一點 Ozymandias 的貓視頻和 Pornhub。鑑於此，黑色堆棧可能意味著非常不同的事情。

On the one hand, it would imply that this simulation is opaque and unmappable, not disappeared, but that the whole thing is ultimately redacted. It could imply that from the ruined fragments of this history, another coherent totality can be carved against the grain, even from the deep recombinancy at and below. The earth layer of the stack, its blackness is the surface of a world that can no longer be composed by addition because it's so absolutely full, overwritten and overdetermined, and to add more is just so much ink into the ocean. Instead of tabula rasa, this tabula plenis allows for creativity and figuration only by subtraction, like scratching paint from the canvas, by carving away, by death, by replacement. The structural logic of the stack system, as I said, allows for the replacement of whatever occupies one layer with something else, and for the rest of the architecture to continue to function without pause.

一方面，這意味著這種模擬是不透明和不可映射的，並沒有消失，但整個事情最終都被編輯了。這可能意味著，從這段歷史的破碎碎片中，可以雕刻出另一個連貫的整體，甚至可以從內部和下方的深度重組中雕刻出來。堆棧的地球層，它的黑色是一個世界的表面，這個世界不能再由加法組成，因為它是絕對充滿、覆蓋和過度確定的，而添加更多只是海洋中的墨水。與白板不同，這種白板只能通過減法來實現創造力和形象化，就像從畫布上刮掉顏料一樣，通過雕刻、死亡、替換。正如我所說，堆棧系統的結構邏輯允許用其他東西替換佔據一層的任何東西，並且架構的其餘部分可以繼續運行而不會暫停。

For example, the content of any one layer, earth, cloud, city, address, interface, or user interface, for example, the content of any one layer, earth, cloud, city, address, interface, or user could be replaced, including the masochistic, hysterical fiction of the individual user, both neoliberal and neo-other things, while the rest of the layers remain a viable armature for global infrastructure. The stack is designed to be remade. That is its technical form. But unlike replacing copper wire with fiber optics in the transmission layer of TCPIP, replacing one kind of user with another is more difficult. Today we're doing it by adding more and different kinds of things into the user position.

例如，地球、雲、城市、地址、界面或用戶界面中任意一層的內容，例如地球、雲、城市、地址、界面或用戶中任意一層的內容，包括個人用戶的受虐狂、歇斯底里的小說，包括新自由主義和新其他事物，而其餘層次仍然是全球基礎設施的可行框架。堆棧被設計為重新製作。這就是它的技術形式。但與TCPIP傳輸層用光纖代替銅線不同，用一種用戶代替另一種用戶難度更大。今天，我們通過向用戶位置添加更多不同種類的東西來做到這一點。

We should, however, allow also for more comprehensive displacements, not just by elevating things to the status of political subjects or technical agents, but by making way for genuinely post-human and a-human positions. For some dramas, but hopefully not for the fabrication for the stack to come, black or otherwise, a certain humanism and companion figure of humanity still presumes its traditional place at the center of the frame. We must let go of the demand that any artificial intelligence arriving at sentience or sapience must care deeply about humanity, us specifically, as the subject and object of its knowing and its desire. The real nightmare, worse than the one in which the big machine wants to kill you, is the one in which it sees you as irrelevant, not even as a discrete thing to know. Worse than being seen as the enemy is not being seen at all.

然而，我們也應該允許更全面的置換，不僅僅是通過將事物提升到政治主體或技術代理人的地位，而是通過為真正的後人類和非人類立場讓路。對於某些戲劇，但希望不是為即將到來的堆疊製作，黑色或其他，某種人道主義和人類同伴形象仍然假定其在框架中心的傳統位置。我們必須放棄這樣的要求，即任何達到感知或智能的人工智能都必須深切關心人類，特別是我們，作為其認識和願望的主體和客體。真正的噩夢，比大機器想要殺死你的噩夢更糟糕的是，它認為你無關緊要，甚至不需要知道你。比根本不被視為敵人更糟糕的是。

Or as Eliza Yudkowsky puts it, the AI does not hate you, nor does it love you, but you are made out of atoms which it can use for something else. One of the integral accidents of the stack may then be this anthracidal trauma that shifts us from a design career as the authors of the Anthropocene to the role of supporting actors in the arrival of the post-Anthropocene. The black stack may also be black because we cannot see our own reflection in it. In the last instance, its geopolitics is then less eschatological than chemical because its grounding in time is based less on the promise of historical dialectics than on the rot of isotope decay. It's drawn, I believe, by the inhuman and inhumanist, molecular form-finding.

或者正如 Eliza Yudkowsky 所說，AI 既不恨你，也不愛你，但你是由它可以用於其他用途的原子構成的。堆棧的一個不可或缺的事故可能是這種炭疽創傷，它將我們從作為人類世作者的設計生涯轉變為支持演員在後人類世到來中的角色。黑色堆棧也可能是黑色的，因為我們在其中看不到自己的倒影。歸根結底，它的地緣政治與其說是末世論不如說是化學，因為它的時間基礎與其說是基於歷史辯證法的承諾，不如說是基於同位素衰變的腐爛。我相信，它被不人道和不人道的分子形式發現所吸引。

Pre-Cambrian flora changed into peat oil, changed into children's toys, dinosaurs changed into birds, changed into ceremonial headdresses, computation itself converted into whatever metamachine comes next. Stack into black stack. Thank you. Transcription by ESO.

前寒武紀植物群變成了泥炭油，變成了兒童玩具，恐龍變成了鳥類，變成了禮儀頭飾，計算本身變成了下一個元機器。堆疊成黑色堆疊。謝謝。 ESO 轉錄。